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.
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"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."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"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."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming."
"The tool's most valuable features are inspecting internet traffic and IPS. We can manage the firewall using shared policies from a single management server."
"We are using gateways, and I appreciate the high-availability gateways they have. They stand out more than the competitors."
"Check Point has pretty simple solutions, like the virtual appliance which you just download and it is imported into VMware and you just start using it."
"The most valuable feature for us is the ability to run the gateways as virtual machines in our virtual data center. The tool protects the virtual data centers."
"The most valuable feature for us is the cluster support."
"The ease of deployment has been nice. It is like managing any of our on-prem firewalls."
"The most valuable feature for me is that you have just one license. You can test and implement everything you need with one license. You do not need to pay for separate module licenses when you want IPS or other features."
"Now, we can filter which websites users can access and block categories that are a risk. For example, we can block social media and gambling sites. This has helped to decrease the risk of access to malicious content on the internet."
"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."
"It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"There is room for improvement, especially concerning the integration with the management center. It would be beneficial if tasks that currently require scripts could be performed directly from the GUI."
"The solution's integration with cloud providers has seen significant development in the past months, but there is room for improvement for better integration."
"In case the device is inaccessible due to some issue such as CPU or memory, there is no separate port or hardware partition provided for troubleshooting purposes."
"It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees."
"The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"The only pain points we have had with it were when we did major version upgrades. Rather than being able to do incremental upgrades on those, we had to completely redeploy. I know that has changed recently, but we had some hiccups when we did the upgrades. This is the only issue we have had."
"I would like to see a step-by-step initial installation of the firewall. That would be really helpful. Like in Oracle appliances, when you start it asks you, what's your current IP address? An initial setup should be a step by step and intuitive process. You click on "begin," it asks you some simple questions. You fill in the blanks - your current IP address, what you want to do, you want to set up a site to site VPN, for example, that kind of thing. That would be the smartest thing to have."
"While Check Point does offer some VWAN offerings, they appear to be more static and less tailored to cloud-native environments compared to Palo Alto's dynamic and flexible approach."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd 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 119 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 "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR, whereas Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series. 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.