We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Appgate SDP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Microsegmentation Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"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."
"Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"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."
"It is pretty stable."
"The flexibility of the tool is valuable. It is very robust. It has a very robust configuration capability."
"It is a scalable solution...The support answers your questions very fast."
"The interface is really friendly. It's simple to understand."
"One of the most important features is stopping lateral movement across our network."
"The simplicity of the SDP platform is a standout feature; instead of navigating through intricate details, users can seamlessly connect to the company's network or switch to the internet with minimal effort."
"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."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"They could provide a single-box solution to manage tools for 4000 users. Additionally, they could add extra features to enhance remote micro connection."
"The user interface should be improved as it is not very easy to work with the updates."
"One thing that kind of sticks out to me is the ability to do a proper non-split tunnel. VPN tunnel-wise, it is not really a true unsplit tunnel, but I think that's just because of the way it's designed. A split VPN basically allows your system to talk to other systems without being forced down the tunnel. A VPN running in a non-split tunnel mode forces all the traffic down the tunnel to wherever you're VPNing to. It forces the traffic down so that the traffic is subject to the firewall and rules that you have in your corporate environment and such. It helps to prevent remote malicious folks that may be talking directly to that box from piggybacking into the corporate environment through it. They do it partially, but it would be nice to see more of an enterprise-level solution there."
"It would be better to connect to an application portal from any device. Documentation and support could be better."
"On the cloud, when you make some changes, it may be difficult."
"One limitation is that it's harder to provide access to multiple applications in the company with Appgate, but that's probably because of poor management."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 2nd in Microsegmentation Software with 17 reviews while Appgate SDP is ranked 6th in Microsegmentation Software with 6 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Appgate SDP is rated 8.8. 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 Appgate SDP writes "Helps us manage traffic-related issues and streamlines access management for the network ". 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 Appgate SDP is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Waverley Labs Open Source Software Defined Perimeter and Netskope Private Access. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Appgate SDP report.
See our list of best Microsegmentation Software vendors and best ZTNA as a Service vendors.
We monitor all Microsegmentation Software 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.
