We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management and AWS GuardDuty based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management offers solid incident detection and detailed reporting. It also provides control over IAM roles and advanced compliance features. AWS GuardDuty stands out for its data collection, threat detection, and monitoring capabilities. Users say Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management should improve its false positives rate, vulnerability assessments, and integration. They also want greater customizability. AWS GuardDuty could benefit from a mobile version and more dashboard analytics. Users requested better threat intelligence and integration with new AWS services.
Service and Support: Experiences with Check Point customer service have been generally positive. Some users praised its quick response times. However, others found the technical support to be lacking. AWS GuardDuty customers have reported satisfactory and quick responses from the Amazon team.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is fast and uncomplicated, although integrating it with cloud platforms may require additional time. In contrast, the AWS GuardDuty setup is straightforward and effortless, ensuring rapid and effective deployment.
Pricing: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management to be cost-effective, but others found that the license cost was a barrier to scalability. AWS GuardDuty offers a competitive pricing structure based on a pay-as-you-use model, with costs that vary depending on the level of usage.
ROI: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides comprehensive cloud management solutions, addressing compliance challenges and minimizing administrative workload. Users have experienced a significant return on investment and witnessed substantial growth in ROI. AWS GuardDuty primarily enhances overall security posture, fostering customer trust, and creating potential business prospects.
Comparison Results: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is preferred over AWS GuardDuty. Users praise CloudGuard Posture Management for its comprehensive data security and protection. It offers complete coverage of users' entire cloud infrastructure. CloudGuar is commended for its granular reporting, rule customization, IAM role, and embedded machine learning for real-time attack prevention. Users said AWS GuardDuty has limitations in analytics, reporting, and monitoring.
"Since our environment is cloud based and accessible from the internet, we like the ability to check where the user has logged in from and what kind of API calls that user is doing."
"The solution is easy to use."
"With anomaly detection, active threat monitoring, and set correlation, GuardDuty alerts me to any unusual user behavior or traffic patterns right away, which is great for staying on top of potential security risks."
"The correlation back end is the solution's most valuable feature."
"One of the advantages of cloud services is the ability to use them on demand. There's minimal installation involved; you can check the latest offerings and make new deployments while dismantling the previous ones. This approach keeps you ahead of potential services, showcasing the agility of AWS."
"We use the tool for threat detection. AWS includes AI features as well. AWS GuardDuty gives us reports."
"The way it monitors accounts is definitely a very important feature."
"The solution provides AWS GuardDuty S3 protection, EKS runtime protection, and malware protection."
"The CloudGuard for Cloud Intelligence tool has several significant features that provide security to our company."
"The Compliance engine has helped put our auditors and senior executives at ease, as we can quickly and accurately measure ourselves against hundreds of compliance checks to include CIS benchmarks, PCI, and other best practices."
"It offers a range of features tailored to address the unique security challenges."
"Cloud security posture management is the feature we've been using the longest."
"Auto remediation is a very effective feature that helps ensure less manual intervention."
"It presents a real-time database that is always updated."
"We really liked its ease of implementation against our Microsoft Azure environment."
"Dome9 has improved our organization; we have a centralized view of all of our assets, our visible assets our ECs, our inventories. And then all the policies are centralized, and it is easier to manage because everything is one component console."
"Cost changes. It's very expensive. If you turn on every feature, it's more than most commercial vendors. For smaller orgs, that doesn't make sense."
"Amazon GuardDuty could be better enriched in threat intelligence data."
"An improvement would be to have a mobile version where remote workers can log in and monitor and fix issues."
"It would be great if the solution had some automation capabilities."
"For me, I would say just the presentation of findings, like the dashboards and other stuff, could be improved a bit."
"It is evolving, and at the moment, I will just need it on a larger scale. Then, it will satisfy my demand, initially."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it will help users to understand multiple options."
"Some of the pain points in Amazon GuardDuty was the cost. When compared to some of the other services, depending on how many we had to monitor, if we had a huge range of accounts, as our accounts increased, we had a cost factor that came into play. Sometimes there were issues, for example, with findings that came up, we wanted to add notes and there were issues back then where notes couldn't be entered properly. If we wanted to leave a note such as "Okay, we have assessed this and this is how we feel", or "This is a false positive", Amazon GuardDuty wasn't allowing us to do that. Even with the suppression of certain findings, there was some issue that we had faced at one time. Those were some of the pain points of the solution."
"Streamlining the user interface would greatly improve the user experience."
"Check Point tools need to improve the latency in the portal since they take a long time to load."
"It does not support on-premise deployments such as VMware Tanzu, and this has been a major drawback when it comes to integrations with some applications."
"Reporting should have more options."
"I would like an interface more adapted to cell phones or tablets."
"The support it provides is not very good. They should improve it since we have had several setbacks due to support issues."
"We're looking for a solution that can incorporate legacy infrastructure for some of our business needs."
"Dome9 should also support deployments that are on-premises and in a hybrid cloud."
AWS GuardDuty is ranked 4th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 19 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 5th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 60 reviews. AWS GuardDuty is rated 8.2, while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AWS GuardDuty writes "A stellar threat-detection service that has helped bolster security against malicious threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP writes "Threat intel integration provides us visibility in case any workload is communicating with suspicious or blacklisted IPs". AWS GuardDuty is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, Wiz and Lacework, whereas Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Qualys VMDR and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks. See our AWS GuardDuty vs. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
