Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ACF2 vs jSonar comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

ACF2
Ranking in Database Security
16th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Mainframe Security (6th)
jSonar
Ranking in Database Security
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Database Security category, the mindshare of ACF2 is 0.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of jSonar is 1.2%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Database Security
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1077621 - PeerSpot reviewer
A reliable, scalable product for security and auditing of our mainframe environment
It is a good product. It has been used for years. As long as it is configured correctly, it is a very stable product. It depends on how an institution or a company configures it. It depends on an institution's risk appetite. You need to make sure it is configured as per the concept of least privilege, and the logging features, detection and control mechanism, and other things like that are enabled. If you configure it to give access to the public, then there could be compromises. You should also have someone who independently checks it to make sure that it is configured keeping security in mind. If it has been configured for a while, when there are enhancements to the product or when you enhance it, you need to make sure that security is also looked at, and it is configured according to an institution's security policies. I would rate it a nine out of 10.
reviewer1633014 - PeerSpot reviewer
Serves as a data lake for database activity and helps to centralize and normalize data
I rate the solution an eight out of ten. It can be simplified as it is a little complicated. However, it has a lot of flexibility and capability. My advice to users considering the solution is to look at their requirements and see if they align with their needs. Ensure that some use cases are tested on the solution before purchasing because it is important to ensure the monitoring works.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Logging and monitoring are most valuable. It is for the mainframe environment, and it is at the forefront for security and resilience."
"Excellent real-time reporting that saves time and resources."
"The NOACCESS by default is another very good feature. Also, access rules are straightforward, and easy to understand."
"I love their support. The support is great. They are number one."
"We use this tool to quickly assign privileges to different users as soon as they come in."
"It allows us to run models against it and do reports against it without understanding the different database technologies."
"The centralization of the data is probably the most useful feature because we span multiple database technologies. We also find the GBDI portion of it very helpful."
 

Cons

"Reporting can sometimes include false positives."
"I would like my team and me to be able to use simple browsers, like Chrome, to be able to access mainframe data and provision users using the browser.​"
"They can work on its ability to work in a distributed environment. It's a mainframe product. As many companies move to the cloud, depending on what cloud models they choose, such as a public, hybrid, or private cloud, it should be deployable. I am not sure if it can be deployed on those platforms. It has been there since the '50s or '60s, and it's still scalable. It has survived all these years, and it's scalable to many platforms, but I don't know about the cloud."
"It needs longer rules. The max rule is 32K."
"It can be simplified as it is a little complicated."
"It would be better if it were more user-friendly. Right now, it's a little bit of a complicated product to use. Another problem that we have is with encrypted traffic on Oracle. This is because it requires a database outage. That's a pain in the butt because you're monitoring critical systems, and they don't like outages."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I know it's not cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Database Security solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
33%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
8%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
42%
Insurance Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is a good length for a password in ACF2 so it's safe?
A set length of 12 characters can ensure the safety of a system. Longer passwords provide an added layer of security, especially when combined with other password complexity requirements. With a le...
Is ACF2 suitable for beginners?
ACF2 can be suitable for beginners with the right guidance and support. While it may have a steep learning curve for many due to its complexity, it offers extensive documentation and resources that...
What types of auditing and reporting capabilities does ACF2 offer?
ACF2's reporting capabilities are highly valuable. It offers various predefined reports that provide insights into our system's security posture. These reports include information on user access pr...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

CA ACF2
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sky, Rogers Communications
Voya Financial
Find out what your peers are saying about ACF2 vs. jSonar and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.