Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) Reviews

The solution is primarily used for security.  We had 48 to 50 firewalls for data center segmentation. All data centers were fitted into multiple zones. Each zone had a different data classification. We had the firewalls deployed on several overseas remote sites.

For nearly three and a half years, the solution was doing pretty good security. It provides scalability in terms of the multiple firewalls that can be connected with the cluster as well. It offers us easy signature updates and rule changes. We just prepare one rule and then select how many firewalls you want to push. It is easy in terms of the management. 

The GUI is getting better. It's more neat and clean now.

Its security and the definition of signatures are pretty good. Especially when you use those firewalls for a website, they pick up the signature very quickly. 

Security is based on two kinds of things. One is based on the IP addresses and port numbers. Another is based on the application. 

CloudGuard Network Security provides you with unified security management across hybrid clouds and on-prem. I used it only for the cloud. If you're using VMware, you can use that on-prem as well. 

The GUI hadn't been that good. However, they fixed that and the GUI is pretty good now.

There may be some latency. In the beginning, you won't really notice - when you have 10 to 15 sessions. However, if you have 40,000 sessions and you are running the dev check in the background, then you will start to notice some issues. It's probably under milliseconds.

It's not as organized as a Palo Alto solution.

We wanted to go with the Azure Network solutions, and CloudGuard was a big expansion compared to Azure Dev, which is a built-in dev solution. I hear Azure is integrating Palo Alto as a back-end solution.

I had a high level of confidence in CloudGuard Network Security. We used it for nearly six months and were comparing different products. I'd rate it at an eight or nine out of ten.

I've used the solution for four to four and a half years. 

The solution is very stable. I'd rate the stability eight or nine out of ten. 

We didn't really check for scalability. We were more focused on features. I'm not sure how well it would scale.

We had the solution in multiple locations. When we tested it, we did so across around 100 customers. 

The product was really good, so we didn't really deal with technical support. 

Our company migrated from Check Point to Palo Alto. I've noticed there are big changes in the Palo Alto GUI. It's neat and clean in comparison. The site was easier to navigate. Check Point has the same features; however, it's not as clear. If you are searching for something, you need to click around. It's not really well organized.

We've also used Azure and decided to go in that direction. 

The deployment wasn't really complex. It depends on if you are familiar with the solution and if you follow the best practices. It's not hard to do a POC design. Within four weeks, you'd have the solution up and running. 

Our infrastructure was 100% Azure, so it was much easier for us to deploy the POC. 

It was pretty easy to configure. 

You can save maybe 30% on costs by deploying this solution.

CloudGuard is pretty expensive. Azure ends up being cheaper. 

They are fairly priced. It's not cheap. However, you definitely need to spend some dollars on security. 

While it's rather fair pricing, it was more about us having the right solution for the user base. 

For a few reasons, we decided not to go with it compared to the cloud vendor's firewall. One was the technology and integration itself. You can integrate CloudGuard into many third-party tools. However, it adds extra cost. Also, if we could find something in the Azure ecosystem, we don't need to go for a third party. That's why we decided to go with Azure. 

I have not yet used its AI capabilities. That said, my understanding is that they have very good tools and built-in initial learning capabilities that can help you begin to understand the traffic.

I would recommend the solution to others, and I have never had issues with the product itself. However, we were looking for Azure-native tools, which is why using this long-term didn't work out. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it a nine if I was 100% sure you could control ransomware attacks. I'm not sure if you can do that fully with CloudGuard. 

My primary use case is for the protection of environments that are in the cloud and multiple branches and areas that are in the layout of all the systems.

This solution helped us migrate to cloud environments from environments that were on premises. It helped us implement protection for our systems. The fact that it is part of Check Point's overall protection system within some kind of central management system allows us to easily manage and gain visibility on everything that happens in the organization.

The protection is at a very good level. There's a very high catch rate. It has good flexibility in operating and implementing the system.

Protection is valuable to me because security is the most important aspect. At the end of the day we are looking for what will give us the answer at the best level.

It is easy to implement, and it has a lot of flexibility compared to other systems you have in the organization. In the end, this is a parameter that, in my eyes, is very central.

In the end, it saves time. It's all in one place and you can quickly see how you're doing with the cloud environment. It just makes things easier and helps on a daily basis because it optimizes the understanding of what we have. 

Instead of logging into the system by yourself and starting to check, there's another management system that sees logs. It examines the data daily, and it creates flexibility regarding what we want to investigate. It is much easier for everything to be in the same management and not scattered in all sorts of different places.

Check Point helped me a lot to know that I have a solution that is stable and answers my needs. It really gave me the confidence to move forward with the whole migration to the cloud. It was very helpful.

When I moved to the cloud, I looked at Check Point's solution and as soon as it suited me, I bought it. We chose CheckPoint right away, it was our go-to choice.

From my point of view and my needs, I don't see room for improvement. In my opinion, the more it has support for more environments and the more integration there is with wider areas, not only in Check Point's systems, but also with other systems, then I think it will allow access to more customers which is not specifically my case, but in principle the wider the system, the more it will be able to appeal to a larger audience; integration with other manufacturers in other words.

I have been using CloudGuard Network Security for two years.

The platform is very good in terms of stability. We never encountered any issue with it.

Scalability is very good.

Support is very good. The response time is good and fast, and they are also very professional.

Positive

I had help from a Check Point CS and it all went smoothly. There was only one person from Check Point who was in constant communication with us and provided us service in installing the solution, my experience with him was very good.

After running a test against what alternatives exist in the market and seeing what they offer, this is the solution that fits perfectly into our budget. This is a very important parameter for us, and Check Point CloudGuard Network Security did so.

The price was really good, that's the main reason we chose it. In addition, the licensing model was very simple.

I appreciate the cloud network security. I find it to be very effective, and I am pleased with securing cloud deployments.

I would rate CloudGuard Network Security an eight out of ten. There's always room for improvement. It could become a 10 if they had more accessibility to other platforms. Overall, it is a good product.

On-premises

I use our Oracle OCI environment to segregate our ERP system, which is JD Edwards, running in Oracle Cloud.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security makes it easy to create firewall routes and so on instead of the tools out of Oracle OCI. It's inside our unified policy.

At the moment, I am only using Network, NAT, and VPN. These are the core components of the system. We aren't using other features. It's activated and yet not customized yet.

It is more straightforward for me to create firewall routes instead of using the traditional board tools in Oracle OCI, which are complex for creating firewall rules. Instead, I use the firewall of Check Point, and it is very easy for me. It is integrated into my unified policy, so I can use it completely as I am used to, making it easy for me to handle.

We can use it across hybrid could as well as on-premises.

It's very easy to create new firewall rules on-premises or in the cloud in the same way, and we can share them thanks to the unified policy.

CloudGuard Network Security helped reduce our organizational risk. It's increased the security compared to the built-in security of Oracle OCI. It has many more capabilities, like IPS and threat prevention, which are available at Check Point. It is based on our security standards. It's reduced risk by maybe 40%.

CloudGuard Network security has increased our confidence in secure cloud deployments and migrations by 50%.

VPN troubleshooting can certainly be improved. It is horrible at this point, honestly. It is horrible compared to other vendors on the market. They have tools where I can directly extract some information on the VPN. In Check Point, it becomes complicated. I need to open a very old-fashioned legacy tool, and operate it by myself, transfer it to my computer, and open the legacy program. This legacy program will not provide detailed insights; it will only indicate if something is working or not, making it challenging to communicate. 

I have been using this product for about half a year.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is great. It's easy.

Mostly, support is good. It depends. If I have a ticket handled by a first-level supporter who may not have deep knowledge, it could be hard to discuss issues. However, mostly, it is good. Compared to other vendors, it's awesome.

Positive

We're a Check Point customer, and we only use Check Point. 

We are using Oracle OCI for our cloud. The first implementation was a bit hard. We followed the instructions. We had to get the help of support.

We did the setup by ourselves.

I am a long-time customer. I am a technical person, not a commercial person. The technical value is high. The unified policy is comprehensive and helps me to create firewall policies that are shared across all our facilities and plants. This is very helpful for us.

High prices are a concern. It is the highest in the market. However, I like the ease of licensing. It's not that difficult. The licensing is easy to understand.

We had not evaluated other solutions before this product was introduced.

I would rate the product eight out of ten. If it wasn't for the issues with the VPN, I would rate it higher. 

Hybrid Cloud

Other

The use depends on the case. I have many customers. Right now, I have one customer, and it's a collection of these functions. The basic ones involve making numerous rules in normal network security. I can protect my emails and files. If someone from my company tries to upload something from the Internet, and I don't know if it’s sensitive, this can help protect my data.

It allows us to make a lot of rules around network security. It helps us protect emails and files. We have the power to protect our data.

There's a whole range of functions that make up prevention against malware and everything. It’s not just one aspect that garners my attention - the whole application is being used to defend. Even as the complexity increases, it is maintained at the same level. And with increasing complexity, I become more efficient, so I have to spend at least the same amount of time.

CloudGuard Network Security provides our customers with unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premise.

In terms of security operations, it helps people spend less time. Integrations make work more efficient.

So far, it's helped our companies to reduce organizational risk by 99%.

We're very confident in the secure cloud deployments and migrations. We feel more safe. It's reliable and it helps avoid mistakes. 

Everything is in one place, and it seems it's easier to use than before. Making it even easier is a good way to improve it more. When it's easier to use, there are fewer mistakes.

I have used the Check Point product for around six years now. 

Stability is okay. I am not aware of any potential stability issues. Check Point is one of the best vendors in this regard.

Performance scalability is good. For my customers, they can add what they want. This is what customers want: the options to get the scalability they need. We simply need to manage the traffic accordingly.

Every experience is different. Every ticket is different, and sometimes it's a little bit painful to pinpoint problems. Sometimes I have a quick solution. Sometimes I am angry, and sometimes I am okay with it.

Neutral

I have worked with Fortinet, however, not with integration into the cloud; it was on-premises solutions. So, I am not sure if I can compare the two, since it's different when it's on the cloud. 

My understanding is the initial setup should be easy. 

The licensing is a bit expensive. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

On-premises

Our main use case for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is to provide a service to third-party organizations, as we are the vendor that implements firewall devices. Currently, we have implemented the network Check Point security firewall in many of our clients that is on-premises, but now we are exploring options for clients that are on cloud and we are trying to achieve the same level of security for the clients' machines that are on the cloud.

The main use case would be to use HTTPS inspection as well as a DLP feature that is provided in the Next Generation Firewall so that none of the traffic containing PII or PHI and personal HIPAA traffic does not get over the internet from our customers or from our end.

The best feature that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security provides is CDR, Content Disarm and Re-arm, where it inspects the files and then looks into the file, takes out the malicious code, reconstructs it and sends it to the user. Another valuable feature would be its Zero-phishing capabilities.

I have found the effectiveness of CDR and Zero-phishing features to be great, and we are even seeing it in our environment. We have not yet faced any phishing links in our organization as a result of the zero-phishing features of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has positively impacted our organization by making our cloud platform more secure. Traditional firewalls cannot be relied upon to protect everything, and the firewall ratings for AWS as well as cloud native firewalls are not that high. Having Check Point CloudGuard Network Security in the cloud has helped us secure our cloud platforms.

The only thing that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security lacks is that for VPN, you need to buy a different model. You need to be in the HA sort of things to establish the IPSec between another firewall or maybe another cloud vendor, and that is the only thing that bothers me about Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

We have recently been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is a stable product.

The pay-as-you-go model is very good for its scalability feature.

Customer support has been awesome, and they respond within fifteen to twenty minutes of opening the ticket. I would rate the customer support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We did not use any other solution prior to Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, as it is the first solution that we are testing.

The experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been that the pricing is very competitive because of the bring your own license as well as pay-as-you-go model. We got the best pricing available.

I have seen a return on investment, and we are still in evaluation mode using a trial license. I believe that it will save our time because we can manage everything from a single platform.

We have not used any of the other products competing with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. We are exploring it, and after this evaluation, we may think of exploring others.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard Network Security around eight or nine out of ten.

We are currently using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security on public cloud on AWS. AWS is our cloud provider.

We did not purchase Check Point CloudGuard Network Security through the AWS Marketplace. We directly talked to the distributor and have been using a trial license for this.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-premises, which makes everything easy because you can push policies and see everything across every Check Point Next Generation Firewall across your entire cloud and on-premises in a single management server. This helps tremendously and makes our job much easier to view logs, push policies, and manage everything.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has helped us reduce our organizational risk significantly, and I believe in Check Point strongly because it has only four critical CVEs from 2020 to 2025. We do not have to have a major upgrade every time compared to its competition, which has had more than fifteen to sixteen critical vulnerabilities from 2020 to 2025. This certainly proves that Check Point's secured firewall OS security is better than its competitors and it will provide the best security to its network.

I feel very comfortable using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security because I have been using Check Point on-premises as well. Migrating to Check Point CloudGuard Network Security feels similar to doing the migration on Check Point Next Generation Firewall on-premises.

I utilize Check Point CloudGuard Network Security alongside Check Point Infinity Playbooks to have some automated tailored solutions. For example, if a certain IP address has a request of multiple times, maybe fifteen times per second, then I block that traffic, saying that it is a DDoS. This is what I am testing right now and it is working perfectly.

If you are considering using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and do not want to compromise on security, then Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the only product you should look for.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I am tasked with deploying firewalls in Azure Cloud, AWS, and VMware. This involves setting up virtual machines in VMware and is essentially focused on these tasks.

It does a great job protecting the clouds.

The important point is that the solution is integrated into our management system (if they already have Check Point). It's just one more gateway to add. We have it on Azure and others. The advantage lies in the integration within our existing ecosystem, which is amazing.

It's good at identifying threats and on par with the market - at least, in comparison to the others we work with. 

We have confidence in secure cloud deployments and integrations. It's important to have confidence. Even if nothing happens, you are protected, You never know when bad luck will happen. There are some public cases that were missing network security on the cloud, and they were affected. It's a must-have, like an insurance policy. 

The license model could be simpler. We have some issues with the license since it tries to be simple, and yet in some cases, it tends to be complex. Apart from that, I do not recall any other issues.

I have been using the solution for roughly four years.

The stability is generally good. Sometimes there are issues we do not understand, especially with older features. Outside of that, the stability is good. It could be better. For instance, when we are working on a release and do an upgrade, we start experiencing unexpected issues. New features might have problems, however, for existing ones, we expect the same level of functionality as before.

We do not use scalability. I do not have much experience with auto scaling, however, it could be beneficial. Usually, our customers use a model that involves bringing their own licenses with static gateways, not scaling out.

Check Point support has its ups and downs. Sometimes, the support is good, and other times, we are a bit desperate. Overall, I would say the customer service is good, not marvellous. There are some challenges.

Positive

As integrators, we also work with other solutions. The main difference is we can take advantage of integrative management. If you already have an environment with Check Point, it's easy and an advantage. 

We typically deploy to the cloud. We create an implementation strategy with our clients. 

Usually, the customer is very savvy and knows what they want. We provide some advice, however, usually, they have their own ideas on what to do and when to do it.

It is important to have this solution because even if nothing happens, you are not protected without it. You never know when bad luck might knock at your door. 

I rate it eight out of ten. 

You need to have some kind of protection in the cloud. Maybe the native protection is enough, maybe it is not. Having protection gives more confidence in the solution. 

Hybrid Cloud

Other

The primary use case for Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is auto-scaling, which is required for us and serves as one of our primary cases for use.

Features like Threat Extraction and Threat Emulation in Check Point CloudGuard Network Security are the most useful features for us.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has reduced our threat landscape to a great extent and is performing excellently when it comes to finding risks in external email attachments, which is the major benefit for us.

There is nothing where I have come to a roadblock where I think that a particular feature is missing. There is no feature that I think is missing.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for the last six years.

Integrating Check Point CloudGuard Network Security with a different solution works fine. Scalability is wonderful, and there are no concerns.

Integrating Check Point CloudGuard Network Security with a different solution works fine. Scalability is wonderful, and there are no concerns.

Technical support by Check Point is good. I can rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security was my first solution of this kind.

The setup was straightforward. The documentation was pretty clear, and as I followed it, the process was simple.

Implementation of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security did not take much time. Implementation was planned for several weeks, but the planning took a bit of time. The actual technical work did not take much time.

I implemented Check Point CloudGuard Network Security myself.

Pricing does not fall under my responsibilities as I am a technical person and do not focus on pricing.

I am not looking for any new solution.

Check Point, being the global leader in providing network security, also provides Check Point appliances. The operating system itself is time-tested, and this time-tested software platform gives us confidence. The firmware, Gaia OS, has given us the confidence to go with Check Point.

We are four people using the product in our organization at the moment.

The product is quite quick, but when it comes to communication, there is some lack of communication regarding escalation and related matters.

I have given this product a review rating of ten out of ten.

Our end customer is using Azure to host a few applications in the cloud, and we utilize CloudGuard Network Security to secure those assets.

CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across hybrid-clouds as well as on-prem. Our customer is also using Check Point on-premises, so we have one place to create all of our policies. It is a lot easier than doing it at different places. We have the same policy in different clouds and on-premises. That is a great thing. There is a seamless experience and the same management. That is a great advantage over using Azure's native firewall.

CloudGuard Network Security has helped reduce our organizational risk by about 15%. That is because of the ease of working with one big policy that spans the entire organization.

With CloudGuard Network Security, we get a unified solution. It does not matter if we are on AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud. The migration with Scale Set is nice to work with. It is very easy to upgrade and so on.

Scale Set is highly beneficial. It is easy to upgrade and maintain. 

It is pretty great in all aspects, but the integration could be easier, especially with Scale Set and related features. It was somewhat challenging a few years ago to set it up, but once completed, it worked well. Easier integration with on-premises solutions could be beneficial.

I have used the solution for about three years.

The track record is excellent, with nothing to complain about.

The scalability is great.

Their support is great. We get quick responses. The customer support consists of very talented people. They are nice to work with.

Positive

I have used Azure Firewall. I have not extensively worked on AWS. In Sweden, our focus is primarily on Azure.

We went with CloudGuard because we have been working with Check Point products for quite some time. It is an easy choice. We are already familiar with on-premises network security, so choosing the same in the cloud is a big benefit.

Maintaining the policy is not difficult at all with CloudGuard. In fact, it is easier compared to Azure Firewall, which seems a few years behind Check Point. The solution is effective for utilizing all security features Check Point provides. Although I have not used all CloudGuard features yet, its network security is akin to an on-premises firewall.

We have a CloudGuard in the cloud, and we use normal quantum gateways.

It was not as simple as on-premises, but there were good guides on how to do it, so we managed in the end.

We are the integrator in this case. We managed the implementation for one of the end customers. However, we had support from local Check Point representatives.

The main return on investment has been in the time spent working with the solution. Since everything is unified in both cloud and on-premises environments, troubleshooting is faster.

It has saved about 50% of the time. If we had two solutions, we would have to troubleshoot two solutions.

Handling costs is not my department. Licensing has been quite acceptable. It is a bit easier now, but when I began working with CloudGuard, it was a bit too technical.

My overall product rating is a nine out of ten. A slightly easier setup process would be great. Check Point is performing well. The cloud is evolving rapidly, and Check Point is keeping up efficiently. 

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

I have implemented the solution for customers at about three or four different companies now. I primarily use it for general Cloud Security to protect Azure. In most cases, it has always been about securing Azure.

For me, Checkpoint in general is characterized by the ease of day-to-day use, management, log review, and all that. This is a big plus because I can execute these tasks effectively through the Cloud, which is the biggest point for me. It is a significant improvement over Azure's security features, providing enhanced security when Checkpoint is implemented. This is especially beneficial nowadays, as businesses are working with fewer people who need to accomplish more tasks.

In my experience, the failover times are a bit poor during an HA failover in the Cloud. However, this also depends on API calls in Azure, so there is not much I can do there. If there is something I could improve, it would be this aspect.

I would say that I have used Network Security for about two years.

The first few setups are always a bit uncertain, like wondering what is going to happen. The documentation is great, but the problem with Cloud technologies is that it changes all the time, leading to outdated documentation. It can be a bit challenging in the beginning, but once I get used to it, the process is acceptable.

The stability is good, apart from the failover I mentioned before, which takes a bit of time. Again, it is not really Checkpoint's fault; it is just due to Cloud architecture. Overall, stability is good, and upgrades are proceeding well.

Scalability offers two solutions: the gateway and the load balancer setup. The load balancer setup is fantastic. If I need anything, it spins up or spins down and works smoothly. When I adopted it around three years ago, I deployed clusters in the Cloud with two firewalls in HA, but the failover was not ideal. Depending on the scenario, I need to choose the right solution.

Technical support has greatly improved over the last couple of years. It used to be less effective, but now it is in a good state. Also, interactions with salespeople from Checkpoint are going well. I have talked with Palo Alto support as well, and Checkpoint is way better.

Neutral

I just started at the company I am working for now, but my previous customer used Palo Alto. They have the same products, of course, but the usability is not the same. It is stable and good, but the usability is not equivalent.

I use multiple approaches. First, I create an architectural design and check with their Cloud team to see their implementation of their environment. Depending on that, I proceed accordingly. It is really customer-based.

For us, it is not really applicable since we sell it and that is the end of it. However, the feedback from customers has been positive. It performs well, effectively doing its job without slowing down and stopping threats. I think the customer is also receiving a significant return on investment from the solution.

The most significant advantage for a day-to-day user like me is the logs. In Palo Alto, I need to manage brackets and everything, and issues arise if something is spaced incorrectly. In Checkpoint, I can input whatever I need and get the required results. This is a major win in troubleshooting. Logging is okay on both platforms, but if I know exactly what to type in Palo Alto, it is manageable. However, they are quite similar without too big a difference. For email security, Checkpoint offers a big advantage, but that is unrelated to Network Security.

I would give it a solid eight. This is quite a good score in my opinion. Absolutely. I rate the overall solution an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.

I am using a Public Cloud deployment model.

I use Microsoft Azure as the cloud provider.

We have used Check Point for on-premise network security, normal firewalling, also application control, antivirus, et cetera. We have around 120 clusters with Check Point managed by MDS, and we also have a Maestro environment. 

We have some services in Azure cloud, and I have Check Point's product there to protect them. It's in development at the moment. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Seucrity is easy to build in the cloud and easy to scale. You can create scale sets, and then it handles it by itself, how much traffic comes in, et cetera.

It has helped us have unified security management across hybrid clouds as well as on-prem. There are only a few services that you can't manage in our on-prem management. For example, if you are using SD-WAN or something, you must use the Infiniti portal with its services.

More support from our partners would be beneficial. A lot could be explained more. It's often a use case that the management is behind NAT, and I need to know what to do to connect my cloud gateways. Documentation is very good from Check Point, however, in this case, it could be better. Maybe more support in building up these environments would be helpful. We are a big company, so we have different teams, and guidance from Check Point would be useful. I need certain things, teams, and permissions, which might make it easier.

I have used it for network security for around 13 years.

I have no problems with stability. There is no downtime. Sometimes, it's a bit difficult to connect to our management.

I can create scale sets, and then it handles how much traffic comes in, adjusts usage, and then scales up or down.

I haven't used other solutions. I've only used other platforms, such as AWS and Azure. It has marketplace templates you can use.

The deployment is very good. It is plug and play. I can choose what I want and what kind of product, and then I simply click "continue" to start. YOu can make your own properties. 

I don't have much information about the pricing. 

We're a Check Point customer. 

It's a very interesting product. However, it's a whole infrastructure, so I have to learn a lot of things besides Check Point to set up the environment. On-premise, we also have switch infrastructure, and it's now something we are familiar with over the years. In the cloud, it's more about clicking here and there to pair it together, which is a different experience. Sometimes I don't know if something is missing because of cloud permissions or if it's due to a lack of knowledge. Maybe more support in building up this environment. 

I give it a ten out of ten.

Public Cloud