We performed a comparison between Imperva SecureSphere Database Security and McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Imperva, Oracle and others in Database Security."The performance of the solution is good."
"We use it for database security, vulnerability analysis, discovery, and handling requests from applications and users."
"The beauty of it is that it provides segregation of duties. Typically, in the traditional environment, DBAs administer the database, and they have too much access. We are in the process of implementing other Oracle solutions, and it brings some kind of segregation. Just because someone is a DBA does not mean that he or she should have access to all of the data. Some of the data can be masked so that privacy and security are enhanced, especially when it is customer data for an institution like a bank."
"It has a lot of different components that cover the needs of our customers."
"As we are very sensitive to financial impacts, this product provides great protection for our organization."
"I like Imperva SecureSphere platform forms. Imperva SecureSphere is the foundation for SecureSphere data, file and web application solutions."
"The discovery module provides good visibility."
"The functionality is very useable and easy to understand."
"The technical support is good; they are knowledgeable."
"The feature I have found most valuable is activity monitoring."
"The support is very good. They are very quick to respond when we have issues."
More McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] Pros →
"I would like to see improvement in the integration part of the tool. This should be an easy process."
"Imperva needs to improve their cloud capabilities."
"There is sometimes lost communication and it can take a lot of troubleshooting to solve."
"Integration with other databases or third-party products would be useful."
"The GUI for this solution could use some improvement."
"Reporting could be improved."
"It is very expensive. Its price can be better."
"The only challenge I see is that SecureSphere is deployed on servers or databases which are held on physical infrastructure. However, there are databases which are hosted on cloud platforms and Imperva has a separate tool altogether for that, not SecureSphere."
"Technical support could be more responsive."
"In the next feature, I'd like to see more integrations and updates overall, specifically bottom tech."
"The UI needs to be improved."
More McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] Cons →
More Imperva SecureSphere Database Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is ranked 2nd in Database Security with 52 reviews while McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Database Security with 3 reviews. Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is rated 8.2, while McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Imperva SecureSphere Database Security writes "The fine-grained auditing available on the platform makes life easier and helps explain anything happening in your database". On the other hand, the top reviewer of McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] writes "The solution's activity monitoring is valuable, but it should have more integrations and updates overall". Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is most compared with IBM Security Guardium Data Protection, Oracle Audit Vault, DataSunrise Database Security, Trustwave DbProtect and jSonar, whereas McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] is most compared with IBM Security Guardium Data Protection.
See our list of best Database Security vendors.
We monitor all Database Security 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.
