Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs SafeBreach comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Akamai Logo
313 views|173 comparisons
86% willing to recommend
SafeBreach Logo
2,055 views|1,163 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and SafeBreach based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
To learn more, read our detailed Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. SafeBreach Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"I found the solution to be stable.""The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections.""The tool's most valuable feature is its visibility.""Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services.""We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming.""Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems.""The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature.""The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."

More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pros →

"The most valuable feature is the reporting database and attack protection.""The most valuable feature is the huge library of hack attacks and breach methods."

More SafeBreach Pros →

Cons
"The long-term management of the security policies could be improved with some kind of automation platform, something like Chef or Puppet or Ansible, to help you manage the policies after day-one... to then manage the policies and changes to those policies, going forward, through some type of automation process is not turning out to be really easy.""It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud.""Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there.""Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult.""The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering.""Guardicore Centra should incorporate automation so that we don't require to write custom scripts and APIs. The tool also has limitations on rules where it allows only sixty thousand rules. Our clients have also commented that there are too many manual clicks and effort to do changes. I think that the incorporation of automation can help our clients make changes with confidence and without the possibility of human error.""They can maybe improve their customer service just because they are kind of a small organization, and customer service isn't as big as others such as VMware.""Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."

More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Cons →

"There is room for improvement in the interface. It is not always easy to find the options that you need and not everything is customizable.""I would like to see some integration on the customization and customer support."

More SafeBreach Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "GuardiCore has made some new changes to the license now. We've seen monthly and annual licenses based on a subscription. We have a few clients that pay anywhere from $25,000 a year."
  • "Compared to the pricing we were seeing from both Illumio and Edgewise, Guardicore was very competitive."
  • "Guardicore Centra provides better value for money than NSX, was the other solution that we looked at, which was too expensive for what it does."
  • "This is not a cheap solution but you have to consider the bigger picture, which is what it is giving you."
  • "The customer would complain about the cost."
  • "The solution is reasonably priced and I would rate it a six out of ten. The tool's licensing costs are yearly."
  • "The price is the same as other products in the market. There's no price argument to choose one or the other product, it will cost the customer approximately the same."
  • "Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is expensive."
  • More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "The price starts from about $140,000 so this solution is expensive in my opinion. Maintenance and support is included in the license cost."
  • "The pricing is more expensive than other options on the market today."
  • More SafeBreach Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions are best for your needs.
    768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems.
    Top Answer:The pricing is too high. Based on market standards, I'd recommend lowering the price. I would rate the pricing a five out of ten, with ten being affordable. The DQE feature increases the license cost… more »
    Top Answer:Customers would want to see the cost improved.
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature is the reporting database and attack protection.
    Top Answer:The pricing is more expensive than other options on the market today.
    Top Answer:I would like to see some integration on the customization and customer support.
    Ranking
    Views
    313
    Comparisons
    173
    Reviews
    5
    Average Words per Review
    442
    Rating
    7.5
    Views
    2,055
    Comparisons
    1,163
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    178
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Guardicore Centra, GuardiCore
    Learn More
    Akamai
    Video Not Available
    Overview

    Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is a software-based microsegmentation solution that provides the simplest, fastest, and most intuitive way to enforce Zero Trust principles. It enables you to prevent malicious lateral movement in your network through precise segmentation policies, visuals of activity within your IT environment, and network security alerts. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation works across your data centers, multicloud environments, and endpoints. It is faster to deploy than infrastructure segmentation approaches and provides you with unparalleled visibility and control of your network.

    SafeBreach is the world's most widely used continuous security validation platform in enterprise companies. The company's patented platform empowers CISOs and their teams to validate security controls, maximize their effectiveness, and drive down risk. 

    SafeBreach provides a "hacker's view" of an enterprise's security posture by continuously validating security controls and presenting findings in customized dashboards to enable stakeholders to cleanly focus on the biggest risk to the organization. SafeBreach automatically and safely executes thousands of attack methods to validate network, endpoint, cloud, container, and email security controls against the Hacker's Playbook, the world's largest collection of attack data broken down by methods, tactics, and threat actors. Data from SafeBreach validations can improve SOC team responses and empower management to make smarter decisions to better manage risk and invest resources.

    Sample Customers
    Santander, Frontier Airlines, OpenLink, Intermountain Healthcare, Cellcom, BancoBASE
    PayPal, ICON, Netflix, Johnson & Johnson, CVS Health, Pepsi, Kellogg's, Cisco, Deloitte
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    University20%
    Retailer10%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Educational Organization10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company6%
    Insurance Company5%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Insurance Company6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business29%
    Midsize Enterprise18%
    Large Enterprise53%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise13%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise65%
    Buyer's Guide
    Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. SafeBreach
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. SafeBreach and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    768,740 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 4th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 17 reviews while SafeBreach is ranked 6th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 2 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while SafeBreach is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation writes "Allowed us to build out a data center topology without worrying about placement of physical or virtual firewalls that can create bottlenecks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SafeBreach writes "Breach and attach simulation solution used to test security tools with a valuable library of hacking data". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, whereas SafeBreach is most compared with Picus Security, Cymulate, Pentera, AttackIQ and XM Cyber. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. SafeBreach report.

    See our list of best Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) vendors.

    We monitor all Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.