We conducted a proof of concept exercise before making a vendor selection. 

We did not choose Skybox because security is bundled in the solution and we only needed one tool for a specific reason. 

AlgoSec is the best solution for file management but Tufin is very comparable and reasonably priced. 

We looked at three solutions at the time, then chose Tufin. We felt that Tufin was one of the more customizable solutions and had the best price. They came in cheaper than everyone else, and at our company, that means a lot. Thankfully, they were the best. We felt they were best of breed at the time.

We did not consider anyone else, because we already had an unused, unimplemented Tufin license. We eventually thought to start consolidating everything into one place.

We decided on Tufin because:

• It was an existing tool.
• It served our purposes. It provided us the essential components for managing a varied environment of different types of firewalls. 
  
• We felt that there was enough potential in the organization to grow with us and provide capabilities, like cloud, VM environments, etc., under the same umbrella.

I am a previous FireMon customer. Tufin beats FireMon hands down.

I am not aware of any other solutions that were evaluated before choosing this one.

We did PoCs. We looked at FireMon, AlgoSec, etc. Tufin came out on top, so we started implementing it, as it was the product that we chose.

With AlgoSec, you had to pay them for all of your workflows. So, if you wanted the workflows, you had to pay them. I don't know how quick that would be as a turnaround, because we would have had to do the whole, "Here's what I want." We didn't like that at all.

Tufin has been a good investment. Unfortunately. We've got some people in our organization who are in love with Skybox and think Skybox can do no wrong. They are trying very hard to replace Tufin with Skybox, even though Skybox hasn't even done any provisioning. I think they're just misguided. It's a product that they love, and maybe it is good at compliance, but as far as provisioning, I haven't seen it. 

We did not have have time to evaluate other solutions. Also, we already had Tufin in place in our other company. 

This seems to be a better solution than AlgoSec, which I have used in the past. I have also seen FireMon, and Tufin gave us what we needed. I didn't see a reason to explore other solutions.

The company a good comparison of the different tools. I don't know if they were working with Booz Allen at the time, but Booz Allen seems to feel pretty strongly about the quality of Tufin and their user experience. It does seem like Tufin has reputation regarding its user interface that it is more friendly than other competitors.

I am aware of two other competitors who were possibly considered.

I believe that FireMon was considered before we chose this solution.

We haven't evaluate any competitors or consider other products.

We did not evaluate other products before choosing this solution.

I can only really compare it to Skybox, which is a solution we also use. 

If I compare it with Skybox, I see it is the best. It is better than the Skybox. However, we need it to do more. 

We did consider other vendors, but Tufin is the market leader. We only deal with the best of breed. We like to go with the best.

I know they reviewed other solutions but I don't know which, for sure, since I inherited the project. I would assume AlgoSec and FireMon were reviewed as well.

We evaluated other solutions, but Tufin had a better workflow.

There are certainly clients that consider FireMon and AlgoSec.

In 2008-9, the choices were thin (Tufin, FireMon or AlgoSec); of those only Tufin offered the promise of an appliance based system that would scale large enough to warehouse data for reports and analysis from many hundreds of firewalls installed across the US.

We looked at FireMon, which is an excellent product, but for me it came down to getting everything stood up and running within a minimum amount of time. I needed it to look really good because I was putting my name on it. Plus, my manager loves the web UI over the FireMon UI, which for him was the key.

We also looked at AlgoSec and FireMon. Algosec was good, but Tufin had the edge in the automation process and the reporting was even better. So it was basically between AlgoSec and Tufin.

I haven't looked into the competition because we don't have the ability to choose between solutions for central management.

Not before but after using tufin actively about a year, we have evaluated algosec as an alternative solution. It was also well designed alternative but it was not well integrated as tufin did with Checkpoint

I wasn't part of the bake-off. I think the company went in the right direction, and I am glad that they didn't even look at FireMon.

While our UK side has Skybox, which I have never even seen, the orchestration piece was really the key to solidifying us on the Tufin solution.

I was talking to somebody earlier today who said that Skybox has a more powerful Network Map than what Tufin has, but I haven't even seen Skybox,

We did look at a few other vendors.

The power that Tufin has behind it is the reason they chose it. They saw that it had a lot of capability compared to its competition.

We have done other PoCs with AlgoSec and FireMon. But as we compared Tufin with them I preferred Tufin rather than AlgoSec. They were basically the same, but then Tufin came out with a lot of changes in their recent update. Also, Tufin is real-time while AlgoSec is near-real-time, for policy management.

We are considering moving away from the solution currently. We're looking for other options. We might shift towards FireMon, however, nothing is set in stone.

We considered Algosec and Firemon, but Tufin was the best.

The decision was made before I joined the organization. I don't know if they looked at competitors or not. Currently, we are looking at AlgoSec, if it can replace Tufin or compete with Tufin in terms of features.

The main differences between the two are only in the pricing and the look and feel. They both do the same thing. Both will be able to achieve our organization's targets. But in terms of look and feel, our engineers are already used to what we have. And I do prefer Tufin.

We did evaluate other options. However, Tufin was the best one that we tried.

We looked at FireMon because it's able to analyze rules. But for daily, operational stuff, such as finding rules that already exist and which firewalls are involved, Tufin is much easier and more efficient to use. It was a no-brainer.

A co-worker recently came to me and asked, "What do you think about Tufin and AlgoSec in comparison”? I told him that Tufin’s customization options out of the box, the value that you get from the training, and the improvements to our organization made it a no-brainer.

We identified others, like Firemon and Skybox, however we found that they were not as mature as Tufin, not offering the same range of Firewall Vendors, e.g. Palo Alto, Check Point, etc., and the same level of automation.

I was not part of the decision to use it.

We have not thought of using any other solutions. We have had Tufin since I joined the company.

We did look at one other solution but the other solution was not close to what Tufin was able to provide, given our enterprise requirements. That basically helped us move in the direction of Tufin.

Along with a colleague of mine, I was involved in the decision to start using Tufin a few years ago. We compared it to AlgoSec and a couple other vendors. Tufin seemed to meet our requirements at the time. Before our renewal, we are looking to re-evaluate what all the vendors have to make sure we are getting the most out of the product.

When we selected we actually did a source selection analysis and from there we did a pilot with two of them

While I was using Tuffin, I did want to evaluate AlgoSec. I wanted to compare the two to see which was better. In the end, I've decided I would stick with this product.

We evaluated other options before choosing this solution.

We did a comparison of three products and Tufin was recommended at the time. We got quotes from Tufin and another product, and Tufin came in under.

I just talked to two people who switched to Tufin from another product. It seems to be the leader of the pack.

We considered other products, but Tufin came with the best out-of-the-box solution, and with the greatest flexibility to change in the future.

The shortlist included both Tufin and AlgoSec. Our evaluation showed that Tufin's features were on par with AlgoSec, but Tufin was the better financial choice.

We did evaluate other solutions before choosing Tufin. This solution is used by many large companies, which is one of the reasons that we selected it.

We could only test AlgoSec for a little while. Our group is part of a larger group of products. When we were doing our PoC for AlgoSec, we were told to stop. The decision was made to move to Tufin because it has group-wise technology, chosen for the acclimation of firewall policies.

AlgoSec is much prettier, it's much simpler, and has a cleaner interface. Functionality-wise, it's pretty similar, from what I read in the AlgoSec documentation. Tufin has a few extra features, but AlgoSec is much cleaner, it's prettier.

Going with Tufin was not a technical decision, it was "politics." The largest group uses Tufin, so other group members have to use Tufin as well. It's mandatory.

We are also evaluated Skybox and AlgoSec.

Tufin is meeting one of our requirments, which is why we are looking to the future with the product.

We chose Tufin because its flexibility at the time was much greater than their competition.

We did not evaluate less costly solutions.

Most important decision criteria: ease of use and the robustness of the tool. We checked FireMon, for instance, and they didn't have anywhere near the features we were looking at, and it was nowhere near as user friendly.

We did look at another solution, but don't ask me what it was called, I don't even remember. We did look at it at the same time, but it couldn't really do half of the things that Tufin did. I can't remember back that far, but I remember we looked at it and it was all really clunky. It didn't feel right, it didn't do half of the stuff that it was meant to be able to do and it was very slow as well. We pretty much put it out straight away.

We also looked at AlgoSec, and it looks interesting especially the workflow parts which are more detailed.

We have not recently evaluated any new solutions.

We evaluated Tufin together with FireMon and AlgoSec.

We also evaluated FireMon. We did not go with them because the solution was not as easy to install or incorporate in our organization. To us, Tufin just seemed to be the better product.

At the moment, we’re not thinking of switching to another vendor. I know there's a couple of other monitoring solutions, like FireMon, or a couple of other systems that people have looked at.

No. Even though we’ve expanded the use of it here, we've always used Tufin. I also used Tufin at a previous employer.

Fro my perspective, it's a solution that covered all our needs, so it was an easy choice. It was a bargain at the price point.

I compared it to the usability and the easy way to actually add devices. We compared it to AlgoSec and FireMon. Both of them I did not feel were very intuitive to work with, so a lot of training would be required.

We also looked at AlgoSec. 

I was part of the decision-making process.

We compared AlgoSec, Tufin, and Skybox side-by-side. Originally, the team chose Skybox. They threw in what a lot of other groups had wanted, like the network team, security team, and DevOps team. When I sat them down (because I voted Tufin), I asked them why and they gave me all of the explanations that were all somebody else's reasons, not ours. I told them that this tool is for us and we needed a true orchestration automation tool. Not one that supports everyone else's automation, and we need one for firewalls.

We like the visibility. That's why we went with this solution over other competitors.

We also use AlgoSec for analysis.

The space is pretty targeted. AlgoSec and Firemon are certainly their direct competitors. Those are really the big three in the space.

The top two we looked at were AlgoSec and Tufin. We felt that Tufin was the leader in the space and we chose it because it was easy to use, very customizable, and it gave us every one of the requirements that we were looking for.

We did not evaluate other solutions before choosing this one.

We are going to keep Tufin as is, but we are going to add AlgoSec. The prices are comparable. We have corporate pricing with AlgoSec. The ease of use of AlgoSec is one of the reasons why we considered using it.

We did consider other solutions.

On the shortlist was AlgoSec, which was the only one that we actually tested.

Tufin and AlgoSec were pretty much in the competitive price range, but this one provided us better integration into the Check Point environment.

I haven’t thought of using any other solution, so, I haven't looked at other solutions yet.

I was involved in the implementation, not so much in the vendor selection. Of course, I knew about Tufin, its reputation and so on, so I was not opposed to it at all.

We also looked at AlgoSec and FireMon.

We did an evaluation of the different solutions on the market, and it was our vendor that recommend us the solution.

We did not perform our own evaluation. However, one of the daughter companies evaluated multiple products (Tufin, FireMon, and AlgoSec) and selected Tufin. We relied on their research.

We weren’t comparing it to anybody else.

I implemented FireMon three years ago for a customer because the customer specifically requested it. I found it very hard to put in place. I wasn’t a part of the Tufin implementation, but in terms of the product itself, Tufin is easier to use.

We compared Tufin to AlgoSec. At that time, we felt that what Tufin had in terms of their workflow and the option to transfer over our existing workflow was more flexible. It was a hard decision. One of the other reasons we picked Tufin up versus AlgoSec was the responsiveness of the people we were working with. They understood the company and our relationship, and we felt that it would be easier to have the ear of the company if we needed customization. They did the changes that we requested, which made life easier. We felt that if we were to go with AlgoSec, it would be a lot harder.

We closed the deal after they made a change to DNS lookup. Objects need to be created on our DNS system before they’re populated, and you didn’t have a way to validate your IP with a host name at that time.

I'm currently looking at other solutions to compare Tufin to. I have done some comparisons between Tufin and AlgoSec and my takeaway from that is that AlgoSec is less expensive.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution, and I don't know who else is competing in this space with exactly the same features as Tufin.

I also know that we evaluated AlgoSec.

No, we didn't. We went straight to Tufin initially because we bought it. There wasn't anything else back then, because we got it ten years ago.

I don't evaluate other vendors every two weeks, but I've evaluated them before, and I think Tufin is quite a technically-leading solution. It's very robust and Tufin has focused on stability and topology. Correct topology is the main factor for authorization speed, and Tufin is the best.

We looked at some other solutions at events, but they are not as advanced or complete as what you get from Tufin.

There may be a better product a year from now, but we're using Tufin now and we're satisfied with it. We'll use it until it doesn't do the job. It's a big deal changing firewall vendors, so we don't want to change unnecessarily.

We also considered AlgoSec.

We also looked at AlgoSec and FireMon.

We did look at less expensive solutions than Tufin, but being a corporation, this solution made sense.

When we were deciding whether to implement Tufin, a lot of the other agencies were using it at the time. We went with Tufin because it was receiving favorable scores from the other agencies.

The only one I can compare it to is AlgoSec. AlgoSec has a few more features but a lot of similar agencies were going towards Tufin, so that's why we went with them.

We did a proof of concept to compare Skybox and Tufin.

At the time, we did a bake-off between Tufin, AlgoSec, and FireMon. One of the main things was that Tufin was just simple. It was basically: rack it, stack, turn it on, IP it, start plugging things in, and it was ready to go. With some of the competitors we had to set up a Window server, buy a Windows license, expertise it, etc.

We're using Tufin OS, which is just Linux. For any customer who wants a solution that is quick to set up and just works, Tufin's the way to go.

We also evaluated AlgoSec and FireMon, but we're staying with Tufin as it's our first choice. We only looking at other vendors because we found that during our evaluation of Tufin, there were some features that weren't implemented. We didn't make any progress on the other evaluations, however, because we didn't want to invest the money in them when we had the feeling that they weren't going to do what we expected.

We didn't look at any other solutions.

We also looked at FireMon. One of our presidents chose Tufin. I don't know which project it was chosen for, but I knew once it was chosen, because we deal with the development and it was decided we would only have one standard solution.

Customers usually evaluate AlgoSec. 

We looked at AlgoSec and Tufin. However, we did not chose Tufin because of the issues.

When we were looking at products that can do this, I think we only looked at Tufin. Its integration with Check Point is what led us to Tufin. That was the main reason why we looked at it.

We also looked at AlgoSec, but I don't know why Tufin was chosen as this was decided by senior management.

I couldn't find other products which have similar features as Tufin.

There was one other solution that we evaluated, but it didn't stack up. Tufin was the best solution.

I've kind of lost a little bit of interest in it, to be honest. There's some other tools that are doing a little bit better. I like AlgoSec and I also like Skybox. I’d like to be able to incorporate my policy data into it and actually be able to see a risk score from end to end. Tufin was not doing that at the time that I purchased it. A true risk score allows you to see the impact of a sev 1 versus a sev 5. Most organizations do sev 4 and 5 patching. They hardly ever go back and do a sev 1 and 2. You can actually take that data, analyze it, put it into your infrastructure, consolidate it and look at your total risk score for a vulnerability. Tufin might be offering that now, but it's modularized and I don't have the budget for it at the moment. I already spent a half-million dollars, so it's a little out of my budget at this point.

I did like the SecureChange feature, and they were one of the first to actually offer that. It allows people to log into a webpage, and if they needed a firewall rule, they would actually submit the request through Tufin. Tufin would then compare it to the compliance policy that you manually build into Tufin. If it violated the policy, it would deny the request for you. It would allow you to make an exception for it because of x, whatever that reason may be.

We have a close relationship with people within Tufin, many of whom came from Check Point. We didn't think about going with another vendor.

We've been using AlgoSec as well for analysis. We use both Tufin and AlgoSec for our reports.

It has been a few years since I've looked at anything else.

Sometimes I work with the AlgoSec solution as well, but not much. I think Tufin's user interface is a little bit better, but this is subjective.

I was invited to look at AlgoSec, but I did not have the time. I only know about it from white papers and so on. SecureChange is the differentiator. I think the part which competes is more SecureTrack, but SecureChange and SecureApp are what makes Tufin more special and they are what we require, which is not provided by Algosec.

Personally, I have seen some others, but I don't think my company deals with anyone else.