We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP and Komodor based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Dome9 wraps our FTP infrastructure with its network security configurations, and this also gives us the ability to monitor FTP activity."
"It provides the most useful tools for protecting our financial account records from hackers."
"On Dome9, you can have reports on compliance, users created, and EAM access to the cloud infrastructure. For example, if some machine is exposed to the Internet, importing and exporting to the Internet when it shouldn't, we get immediate alerts if someone does this type of configuration by mistake. Dome9 is very important because AWS doesn't protect us for this. It is the client's responsibility to make sure that we don't export things to the Internet. This solution helps us ensure that we comply with our security measures."
"This product provides a really nice visualization of the infrastructure, including network topology, firewalls, etc."
"It presents a real-time database that is always updated."
"The most valuable features of CloudGuard CNAPP are its reporting capabilities for aggregating vulnerability information and scoring."
"The most valuable feature is the separate environment."
"This solution provides threat prevention and detection of anomalies automatically and investigates the activity of each one of them."
"The event timeline has been super helpful, enabling us to overlay node events in the same timeline as deployment events... That helps an engineer very quickly troubleshoot without having to do too much digging."
"The more time we use Komodor the more we save. Currently, we have seen around a ten percent return on investment."
"The service overview is definitely the most valuable feature. With it, I can see all the services and see if they're healthy or not without having to go specifically into each workflow individually. It has been immensely helpful for us whenever we've had network issues or other such issues. We've been able to use Komodor and see at a glance where there might be potential issues."
"Komodor's multi-cluster centralized event timeline is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable aspect is the speed with which I can narrow down what's going on. Usually, I look at the overview of events and then the timeline of an event and the status of the logs to quickly check what's happening or what has happened."
"It should have some options to activate API calls to the platform in the cloud, another improvement would be that when the rules are colonized and they want to be published."
"Scalability, particularly in workload protection, is an area that needs improvement."
"The product must provide different features like antivirus."
"I'd like to see more advanced encryption for local features, which is not present right now."
"The license cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"Currently, I would like this solution extended to cellular devices or tablets."
"Automation and advanced threat prevention have room for improvement."
"Down the road, we would like to see automation. That is probably a feature that most people want. If they can automate patching a vulnerability, it will be much easier."
"I would like to see improvements in how the product is installed. We've already communicated these things directly to Komodor. One feature we would like to see is for Komodor to be highly available on the clusters. Currently, it's only able to run in one instance within the cluster."
"I hope that the cost analytics and resource usage allocation areas will see further development. For example, where we can now see if the pods are over- or under-provisioned, I wouldn't mind higher-level development."
"I like the alerts that Komodor provides, but I think the alert interface could be improved."
"One thing we don't have visibility into, which I would love to have, is metrics, such as user logins and usage. It's really hard to know what people are doing when I don't have any metrics on that directly."
"Komodor's visibility could be improved."
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 6th in Container Management with 63 reviews while Komodor is ranked 12th in Container Management with 5 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6, while Komodor is rated 8.8. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Komodor writes "Provides extensive visibility into our nodes and has been incredibly useful in freeing up our DevOps staff for other projects". Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Qualys VMDR, whereas Komodor is most compared with Portainer and Amazon EKS. See our Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. Komodor report.
See our list of best Container Management vendors.
We monitor all Container Management 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.
