When it comes to real-time compliance management, FireMon is much better. I've looked at Tufin and one other competitor, but FireMon has the most accurate best-practice reports. Tufin was our least favorite of the three. The other one was pretty good, but it looked a little bit immature. You had to create all the stuff you needed to do, while FireMon had everything already created, so it was the logical choice.

Our information security did PoCs with many firewall or configuration change compliance software solutions.

Right now, we use a change management system so we are not using FireMon to warn us when new firewall rules, and changes to existing ones, violate compliance policies before they are deployed. FireMon does this, and we have seen it where it will have a questionnaire of things before we implement into the firewall. However, we are not presently using it because it does not integrate well with our current change management software, Cherwell.

We looked at a couple of other companies. We chose FireMon because of its cost and its simplicity, as well as its deployment and provisioning. We read reviews like this one, and we were quite confident because of what they described as their use and what their outcomes were.

The company evaluated AlgoSec and a few other tools, ultimately zooming in on FireMon. It was after the initial evaluation that the PoC was done.

We evaluated both Tufin and AlgoSec, as competitors of FireMon. FireMon differentiated itself because it was more fully featured on the firewalls that we were deploying.

AlgoSec was one of the three other products we looked at. FireMon seemed to be a better fit for where we're going and what we're doing. It seemed to have more capabilities and features than some of the others did, features that fit our environment.

Other than the initial purchase, we just put in for the renewals every year and somebody else worries about budgeting and everything. 

We looked at Tufin's comparable product. We were using an older platform of theirs so we looked at their new platform and we looked at FireMon's and we decided on FireMon.

Before the parent company bought us, we used to have another product - I don't want to say its name - but it wasn't like FireMon. FireMon is way out there. It has all these features. I'm still learning it and I have almost a year-and-a-half of experience using it. It just has a lot of stuff that my other tool did not have at all. There's so much visibility in it and stuff to play with that my other tool did not have. I really like FireMon.

One of the products I used was Tufin. It wasn't like anything like FireMon. You couldn't do the stuff you can do with FireMon, in terms of the Policy Planner option and the Policy Optimizer. All you could do in Tufin was view the rules, how many hits; basic stuff.

No other solutions were considered.

During our proof of concept phase, we also evaluated Tufin, AlgoSec, and Skybox. We chose FireMon based on a few different things, but the main one was that they were a US-based vendor and the others were Israeli.

Customer evaluated other products, but chose FireMon due to its features and rating on Gartner.

We demoed and looked at other solutions but we did not implement any. AlgoSec and Tufin were the two main solutions that we checked first.

In the end, it really came down to the support. FireMon is more attentive than these very large companies, and we needed that attention. Their attention to our needs is what sold us on the product.

I think there has been an evaluation, but I wasn't party to it.

At the end of last year, we reevaluated which products we wanted to continue going with based on budgets. We reviewed Skybox, Tufin, AlgoSec, and FireMon.

Before choosing this product, we also evaluated Tufin and AlgoSec.

I believe the other option that we looked at was Infoblox and maybe one other tool. However, Infoblox was just too cumbersome and didn't offer a lot of features. In comparison, we felt that FireMon had those out-of-the-box features built-in.

We didn't evaluate any other products.

We did not evaluate other options. This was the first of its kind. I saw it at a vendor/expo demo and I was interested in it.

Our vendor that we work with threw it into a deal. We paid for support and they were trying to increase the overall install base footprint. They made a couple deals with us for a next generation firewall. I wasn’t budgeted to purchase it, but it was part of a deal, and it fell into our lap for next generation firewall monitoring.

I believe the only other option I looked at was Check Point's reporting option and it was quite costly.

We might have looked at Tufin.

I believe the other option that we looked at was Infoblox. However, Infoblox was just too cumbersome and didn't offer a lot of features. We felt that FireMon had built-in features that were out-of-the-box.

FireMon Immediate Insight was the only product that would work for us, due to the limitations that the Clinical Technology Department has at KP.

We talked about other solutions with different partners, and based on that we decided to go with FireMon. We did have a proof of concept with them before going live, and we liked it and the options it had, so we decided to go forward.

I personally did not test any other alternative, but I heard management evaluated Skybox as well; they eventually chose FireMon. It was a management decision, so I don’t know why others were rejected.

We looked at AlgoSec before choosing FireMon.

We have evaluated FireMon’s competitors like AlgoSec and others, but found FireMon to be the best solution for our needs due to having a complete set of tools.

Tufin and AlgoSec were evaluated as well.