We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and SafeBreach based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"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."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"That is primarily because I've seen increased rules. It's kind of caught us a little off guard. With GuardiCore, I have had to deal with their technical support and engineering team in Israel. They are amazing. They are very quick to adapt."
"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 most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting database and attack protection."
"The most valuable feature is the huge library of hack attacks and breach methods."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"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."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"The long-term management of the security policies could be improved with some kind of automation platform, something like Chef or Puppet or Ansible, to help you manage the policies after day-one... to then manage the policies and changes to those policies, going forward, through some type of automation process is not turning out to be really easy."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"I would like to see some integration on the customization and customer support."
"There is room for improvement in the interface. It is not always easy to find the options that you need and not everything is customizable."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 4th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 17 reviews while SafeBreach is ranked 5th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 2 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while SafeBreach is rated 8.0. 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 SafeBreach writes "Breach and attach simulation solution used to test security tools with a valuable library of hacking data". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, whereas SafeBreach is most compared with Picus Security, Cymulate, Pentera, AttackIQ and XM Cyber. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. SafeBreach report.
See our list of best Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) vendors.
We monitor all Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) 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.