Share your experience using Waverley Labs Open Source Software Defined Perimeter

I used the tool for data storage. 

I can access the information whenever I want. It's integration is easy. The tool's GUI is easy to use with an IT background. The value benefits of using it include the ability to avoid storing data on local machines, reducing the risk of data loss

People who don't have experience in IT may find the tool challenging. It needs to improve its pricing. 

I used the tool for six months. 

I am the sole user of the solution. 

Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy's technical support is okay. 

The solution's deployment was not very quick. It took about two weeks to deploy, but that wasn't continuous work. It was more like a few hours here and there over two weeks.

I stopped using the tool when I shifted to the office. I had to align my use with the office requirements. I rate Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy an eight out of ten. 

I recommend that others be clear about their needs and requirements before choosing a product. It's important to evaluate thoroughly whether the product meets their specific needs.

In my company, we have only dealt with the product's PoC phase. Even in my previous organization, we were only focused on the product from a PoC perspective. My company needs to do some evaluations and take care of the PoC phase to see if the product meets some of our customers' requirements. To validate whether the product meets the requirements of our company's customers, we will have to conduct a use case test and submit the report stating that the solution would be able to fulfill the set requirements.

The tool's grouping option layout and cost are areas of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy for two years.

It is a stable solution.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

In case of some breakdowns, how good it would be to get support from Google is not something that I have experienced yet. As long as it is running, the tool is fine.

In my previous company, around 20 to 40 people used the tool.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

The requirements of the deployment process related to the product can vary based on the customers' use cases. If the use cases are simple, the deployment part becomes easy. If one has a lot of use cases to deal with, the deployment part will be a very detailed process.

There is a need to make payments towards the license in charges attached to the product on a yearly basis.

Against GCP, my company had evaluated other options like AWS and Azure. Considering the ease of use and the management's decision, my company chose GCP.

My company evaluates whether the product is capable of fulfilling the requirements of our customers, and we may even do it with the other OEM tools in the market. Based on the use cases given to my company by its customers, we evaluate whether Azure, AWS, or GCP can be helpful. Among the three cloud options, the ones that are able to fulfill our company's customers' requirements will be evaluated, and their report will be submitted to the manager. Based on the costing part, customers can decide which OEM tool would be the best for them. My company does technical and financial evaluation of the products.

As there were no operational changes and only initial implementation was required, which was a part of the PoC phase, there wasn't much of an impact on the user experience.

All the three service providers, like GCP, Azure and AWS are used to meet the same requirements. I would say that the same benefits are made available to users by all the service providers. The differentiation part can be considered only on the basis of the costs.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.