We compared Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Check Point CloudGuard Network Security based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Akamai Guardicore Segmentation provides great flexibility in establishing network security zones and offers strong coverage for older operating systems. However, it may pose challenges for large organizations and lacks support for certain Kubernetes and service mesh. Conversely, Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has a simple initial setup process and offers a wide range of valuable features including VPN, IPS, and URL filtering. Nevertheless, it has room for improvement in terms of support, visibility, and user-friendliness.
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"The real bonus is the fact that we can secure applications, all the way down to the individual services, on each host. It's actually more granular security than we can get out of a traditional firewall."
"That is primarily because I've seen increased rules. It's kind of caught us a little off guard. With GuardiCore, I have had to deal with their technical support and engineering team in Israel. They are amazing. They are very quick to adapt."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"The tool is a complete package that offers many features like visibility. You can get a graph with real-time workflows and visibility into server-to-server communication. We get visibility into many things happening within our environment."
"This solution brings us closer to having a better security score, which helps us a lot in complying with information regulations based on security."
"The main benefit of the Check Point Virtual Systems solution is its ability to split up the hardware appliances that we have into several logical, virtual devices with separate traffic handling policies, as well as the switching and routing."
"The most valuable feature for us is the scale set, which allows us to scale horizontally, vertically and dynamically depending on the traffic load."
"Some retail customers find the scale-up and scale-down features valuable, particularly with scale sets. This is useful for handling increased loads on devices and utilizing firewalls, similar to on-premises setups with active standby configurations."
"The security configuration features have enhanced the reliable coordination of programs and data safety."
"The program is very stable."
"The installation process doesn't take very long."
"The most valuable feature is threat prevention."
"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."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"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."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"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."
"Zero touch removes any independence for configuring."
"Improvements needed include better integration with Azure features to match on-premises capabilities."
"The deployment phase takes too much time."
"The solution lacks the capability to scale effectively."
"We are at the place where we are looking at better integration with the management system. We use an MDS today, and it is self-deployed. We want to get to the Smart-1 Cloud, but we do not know what that looks like today because it does not support a multi-domain setup. Smart-1 should either be able to do multi-domain or there should be some form of taking a multi-domain environment and putting it in Smart-1."
"The product can still grow."
"What I would like for future updates would be faster updates to apply, and perhaps a greater presence in the local language for the regions of Latin America."
"In the next release, including VRF support would be highly beneficial."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 2nd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 121 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6. 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 Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "Highly reliable, great visibility, and centralized management". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Cisco Secure Network Analytics, whereas Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with VMware NSX, Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Fortinet FortiGate-VM. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center 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.