We performed a comparison between Cisco Defense Orchestrator and Tufin Orchestration Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This product provides excellent centralized device controls and reporting."
"If our server is blocked, this solution shows us why it is blocked and allows us to update the network routing."
"There are a lot of templates that are already built-in. They give you quick-to-create and quick-to-apply policies that are typically a little more complicated for people."
"When we're looking to the policies, it identifies the shadow rules. It notifies us about anything that will supersede other rules."
"I like the upgrade feature. That is pretty valuable to me because I have dual ASAs and when I go through CDO it does it for me pretty well. It's all done in the back-end and I don't really have to be involved. I just initiate, pick the image, and I pick when I want it done and it just does it, whether I have a single ASA or have a dual ASA."
"The ability to see the uptimes on the different VPNs that we have configured for site-to-site."
"If we have a firewall go down, I can hop into CDO, pull the latest configuration off and apply it. That's really good. It helps save time."
"The initial setup was straightforward. We spun up the VM onsite. We generated the key that it needed to talk to the Cloud Orchestrator. After that, as I started adding devices, it was relatively quick and easy."
"It is an important application for controlling and monitoring firewall rules. It is useful for making and monitoring the changes."
"In the past, we would do certain things because of private knowledge of people's own understanding of the network. We don't have to rely on just that piece of it, because of the topology. We now know which firewalls come into play."
"We use this product to sharpen our change cycle. A request used to take quite a while as we did manual assessments. A lot of that is now done through SecureTrack."
"One of the main things is to look at what policies haven't been hit, so we can remove those remnant policies when people come in, use it, and it's still left on the Check Point. So when a couple of users say, "This is not needed anymore." We'll remove it."
"The most valuable feature of Tufin is we have better visibility and management of our file infrastructure."
"We just got done with major audits. Tufin was able to provide information to give back to people, and say, "Hey, this is what I need to do, and what we're doing.""
"The designer gives the ability to know where to add a rule, or if the rule is already in place."
"The most valuable feature is alerting, which lets me know when someone has made a change."
"They need to work on the user interface. It needs to be improved to make it more user-friendly."
"I've found dozens of bugs over the year we've been using it. The more I use it for different things, the more problems I find... Most of the problems have to do with the user interface. A lot of thought and work has gone into the back-end component to make the product do what it's intended to do, but the way it is presented for use hasn't gotten nearly as much thought to make it smart and bug-free."
"The main thing that would useful for us would the logging and monitoring. I have to check it out, to get the beta, because I don't have access to them... I wanted CDO to be a central place so where I could do everything but right now I don't think that's possible. I really don't want to go back and forth between this and FMC. Maybe the logging portion, when I look at it, will give me some similarities."
"If I make a change locally to the firewall, CDO gives an alarm or an error message and says there's a change in compliance: "The firewall has this configuration but the last time it was compiled it had that configuration." That view of new changes versus the old could be better... I had to log in manually, locally on the firewall, to check which version, which configuration was actually running. I couldn't see it in CDO."
"CDO doesn't have a report, an official report that I can check daily. It has another module called FTD, but it doesn't have that specifically for ASA. In the reporting, there are a lot of things that aren't there. There is also room for improvement in the daily monitoring."
"There could be some slight improvements to navigation. In some of the navigation you've got to go back to be able to get into where you need to be once you've made a change. If I make a change, I've then got to go back to submit and send the change."
"I'd like CDO to be the one-stop-shop where we could do all the configurations easily. It would be nice, for ASA upgrades, if we could do them from a central repository and not have to reach out to Cisco. That would be a definite plus."
"The dashboard needs to be more customizable to provide better reporting for our network."
"There are at least two things that need improvement. One is the business workflow and the second is the integration with logging solutions."
"The GUI is limited with respect to how much you can develop and visualize the process."
"In the next release I would like to see better migration in the Cloud because that will allow more visibility in the network."
"A limitation right now for compressed firewalls is the limited ability to see above a site level in terms of the Topology Mapping in the policy display. While Tufin's actively working on a solution, or at least they have this in the queue, from being able to view this on a higher level and how all of our site networks are connected, this ability would be useful, as we expect to have these compressed firewalls in place for quite some time."
"We would like to see automation metrics, from a reporting standpoint. We would also like to see automation of site-to-site VPN tunnels. We would like to see automation of Check Point application-based firewall rules."
"The pricing should be reviewed, as it is a little too high."
"The biggest area where I see a need for improvement is some of the documentation and training stuff. It does a really good job of hitting the big concepts, but it needs like another layer deeper of actually getting into some of the details of how to do some of the things. Conceptually, I understand how the product works, but now how do I start building stuff and integrating it into my environment."
"I would like to see better report integration in this solution."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Defense Orchestrator is ranked 14th in Firewall Security Management while Tufin Orchestration Suite is ranked 2nd in Firewall Security Management with 180 reviews. Cisco Defense Orchestrator is rated 8.2, while Tufin Orchestration Suite is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Defense Orchestrator writes "Provides visibility into entire infrastructure and bulk changes save time and resources". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tufin Orchestration Suite writes "A flexible, very secure solution that works well in Layer 2 environments". Cisco Defense Orchestrator is most compared with AlgoSec, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Azure Firewall Manager, whereas Tufin Orchestration Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, FireMon Security Manager, Skybox Security Suite, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Opinnate. See our Cisco Defense Orchestrator vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.
