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."We use a lot of image upgrades. We take some 20 devices and then we update everything at once, including the policies. We apply policies for groups. For certain groups, like anti-viruses, we send out policies and apply them to every single device. It's really easy and simple."
"The most valuable feature is being able to do centralized upgrades on the ASAs. We can select all of those ASAs, and say, "Upgrade these ASAs at this scheduled time." It will copy down the ASA image, ASDM image, and then do the upgrade and failovers, and then put it all back into service as required at a scheduled time. It automates that process for us."
"For this product, they are very uncharacteristically interested in resolving whatever issue the customer reports. They're really attentive, and they address whatever we bring up as quickly as they can. That's been a very positive aspect of the product."
"The ability to do operations on multiple firewalls at once is valuable because it saves time and mental effort. The solution's ability to make bulk changes makes it very convenient to manage things at once on multiple targets."
"With Cisco Defense Orchestrator, we can manage the complete Cisco Security solution. It provides a simple and centralized way to manage all products."
"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."
"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."
"We have quite a few Active Stone by pairs. If they fail over... I'll see that there's a change on it and I'll have a look. The only change on it is that now this one is the standby, it took over the active role. I can go into that firewall and find out what happened... and troubleshoot based on that. That's pretty cool too."
"The features I have found most valuable are its capability to check on the firewall and the routers. Afterwards it checks out all the configs, checks the vulnerabilities, checks the risks - it checks everything that may end up causing our router to be compromised. At the end it recommendations what we should do."
"I like the deployment and management of this solution."
"We use Tufin to clean up our firewall policies. This makes it a lot easier to find out the things that are wrong."
"The product is good at auditing the changes that we make in our environment."
"It provides a real-time sense of how the policies are configured and whether there are any shadow rules. Another great thing is that it provides greater reporting based on how the rules have been set up."
"One of the biggest quick wins that we had with Tufin was cleaning up our firewall policies and rules. We cleaned out a lot of rules which helped our devices, longevity-wise, as well as speed-wise."
"A customer is able to submit a request for access and Tufin will automatically analyze the system to find out where the rule needs to go, and then design the rule for you."
"I don't think that we were ever slow, but we can now say that changes are completed within twenty-four hours."
"It should have more features to manage FirePOWER appliances."
"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."
"We had some MX devices that were blocking Windows Update from happening. We found out it was a Meraki issue, but it would have been nice if it had been flagged for us: "Hey, these updates are failing because the MX is blocking it." It wasn't a huge problem, but there was a loss of our time as well as the fact that the updates didn't get pushed out... It would have been nice if CDO had let us know that that was an issue."
"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."
"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."
"It would be a better product if it incorporated device control for third-party products easily."
"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."
"They can centralize all products and provide a correlation about an incident and the response. They can also provide an on-premises solution. Currently, Cisco Defense Orchestrator is just for cloud deployments, not for on-premises deployments. Customers have to manage it on the cloud. We are based in Vietnam, and most of the customers here prefer to have on-premises deployments. Customers, especially from banking and government sectors, do not prefer to do anything on the cloud. Some of the small enterprises use the cloud."
"There was some complexity during the initial setup"
"The hardest piece is getting the matrix built."
"I would like an improved reporting module which can be flexible (custom reports) and allow us to generate our own reports, because the data is already there."
"There is room for improvement in the speed of Tufin. It is using so many of my VM resources and yet it is still a bit slow... Even though we are allocating 130 gigs of RAM, we still have to wait for a few minutes for a single report to be generated. Otherwise it would be a perfect tool."
"The initial setup of Tufin was complex. We had some issues with the architecture."
"We actually had a key issue, which was a bug, that the development team didn't want to fix. We escalated it, then it got fixed. So, the management level seems very responsive at least, but at a support level, they are just regular support people and not outstanding."
"There were some hiccups here and there with the initial setup."
"Currently, we are able to monitor access rules and the operating system of a firewall. It would be great if we can also monitor the configuration of the firewall through Tufin."
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.
