We performed a comparison between Aruba Orchestrator and Check Point CloudGuard Network Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product has reduced OpEx expenditure."
"The technical support services are excellent."
"The Business Intent Overlay is a great feature."
"Aruba Orchestrator has notably reduced enrollment setup times from several hours to within an hour if prepared and planned."
"The most important feature is WAN optimization."
"The most valuable feature is optimization."
"It is scalable. It's a cloud solution, so it's easy to implement and manage."
"Check Point is one of the few solutions that pay attention to cloud security. Many others mostly focus on providing on-premises solutions."
"The versatility is the solution's most valuable feature."
"The 24/7 online customer support services enhance effective operations and provide quick services in case of a system failure."
"The CloudGuard Network Security's most valuable feature is implementing IPS for accessing our data center and server environment in Azure. It helps us to prevent attacks. By protecting our environment with Check Point, which we were already familiar with, it provided a solution that extended into the cloud environment."
"The capability to auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand is great."
"The tool's most valuable features are the REST APIs that help to automate the deployment and maintenance process. It helps us to reduce time to 15-25 minutes compared to the manual process which used to take around two to three hours."
"It is a good-to-use tool that is also flexible."
"They could provide essential training to understand the product functionality."
"The initial setup is complex, depending on the overall planning for the entire environment."
"Aruba Orchestrator should implement dynamic certificate changes for security."
"The management menu should be simplified."
"The solution can be improved by lowering the cost and making it more user-friendly for first-time users."
"The solution lacks sufficient security features."
"Some more built-in marketplace templates would be nice. It would be nice to see more vendor assistance in deployments and backup of recoveries versus having customers rely upon that themselves. That would make it a lot more seamless and aligned with the standard on-premise model that is there. Check Point can extend the same posture that they have to CloudGuard and make that transition very seamless."
"It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees."
"We miss full blade support for all blades that are compatible with the cluster. Especially notable is the lack of support for Identity Awareness in active standby environments for customers. In our setup, transitioning to Connective clusters would be preferable for maintaining connections during failover situations."
"It's meeting our needs at this time. If I could make it better, it would be by making it more standalone. That would be beneficial to us. I say that because our current platform for virtualization is VMware. The issue isn't any fault of Check Point, it's more how the virtualization platform partners allow for that partnership and integration. There has to be close ties and partnerships between the vendors to ensure interoperability and sup-portability. There is only so far that Check Point, or any security vendor technology can go without the partnership and enablement of the virtualization platform vendor as it relies on "Service Insertion" to maintain optimal performance."
"People don't know about the tool's features. There's a lack of skill. Users require more knowledge on how to integrate it into the cloud environment and orchestrate routing. So, it's not necessarily a CloudGuard Network Security or Check Point issue but more about integration, knowledge, and understanding."
"The costs are high."
"The solution lacks the capability to scale effectively."
"The relationship between AWS and Check Point could be better. We had issues related to the type of instance and how it interconnects with AWS or cloud-native solutions. We overcame the pain points that we had, and now, AWS is evolving in a way that will facilitate how Check Point works. Our pain points were minimized, but they were there."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aruba Orchestrator is ranked 15th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 6 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 3rd in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 119 reviews. Aruba Orchestrator is rated 8.4, while Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Aruba Orchestrator writes "Reduces OpEx expenditure but needs improvement in security ". 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". Aruba Orchestrator is most compared with Cisco SD-WAN, Juniper Session Smart Router and VMware SD-WAN, whereas Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation. See our Aruba Orchestrator vs. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions 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.
