We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management and Tenable.sc based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Tenable.sc excels in detecting vulnerabilities with its advanced scanning and prioritization features. Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management, on the other hand, offers a wide range of data security features such as governance and administration portal panel. Tenable.sc has room for improvement in various areas such as penetration testing, pricing, reporting, GUI, and support. On the other hand, Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management needs better reporting, investigation, customization, and integration.
Service and Support: Tenable.sc has received positive feedback for their customer service, although there have been reports of delayed responses. Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management has received mixed reviews, with some customers satisfied with their support while others feel it could be better.
Ease of Deployment: Tenable.sc's setup is easy and straightforward, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management's setup may require vendor support or multiple administrators. Tenable.sc's on-prem version involves significant integration, while CloudGuard's difficulty may depend on the connection to cloud systems.
Pricing: Tenable.sc charges based on the number of IP addresses scanned, while Check Point bases it on the size of the cloud infrastructure. Check Point's setup cost is generally seen as affordable and easy, while opinions on Tenable.sc's pricing vary.
ROI: Tenable.sc saves on manpower and has a positive ROI while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is more expensive but provides security and compliance solutions that can lead to a 35% ROI growth rate.
Comparison Results: Tenable.sc is the favored option when compared to Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management according to user feedback. Tenable.sc has more advanced scanning capabilities, vulnerability ratings, and a risk-based approach compared to its competitor. While Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management offers valuable features such as data security and automated remediation, users have suggested that it needs improvement in areas such as reporting options, false positives, and pricing.
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"The automation roles are essential because we ultimately want to do less work and automate more. The dashboards are easy to read and visually pleasing. You can understand things quickly, which makes it easy for our other teams. The network and infrastructure teams don't know as much about security as we do, so it helps to have a tool that's accessible and nice to look at."
"Out of all the features, the one item that has been most valuable is the fact that Wiz puts into context all the pieces that create an issue, and applies a particular risk evaluation that helps us prioritize when we need to address a misconfiguration, vulnerability, or any issue that would put our environment into risk."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"The vulnerability management modules and the discovery and inventory are the most valuable features. Before using Wiz, it was a very manual process for both. After implementing it, we're able to get all of the analytics into a single platform that gives us visibility across all the systems in our cloud. We're able to correspond and understand what the vulnerability landscape looks like a lot faster."
"Auto remediation is a very effective feature that helps ensure less manual intervention."
"Alerts of cloud activity happening across all accounts is helpful."
"The product allows us to enhance the security of the implementations we have."
"The product enables us to check the information that goes out of the company."
"The user interface is responsive and quite intuitive; when selecting an object it automatically shows the relevant actions."
"The CloudGuard for Cloud Intelligence tool has several significant features that provide security to our company."
"The tool is also very intuitive; its dashboards are very complete and provide a lot of valuable information for decision-making to improve security."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to apply common tools across all accounts."
"The solution is one of the most, if not the most, stable product available."
"Their overall cost of service is pretty good."
"Tenable is the leading product for vulnerability scanning."
"The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs."
"The solution is very intuitive and the dashboards are simple to use."
"Compared to other products, the most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and ability to provide visibility over scan results while providing many templates to users, making it a helpful tool."
"The most valuable features of Tenable SC are the reports and the dashboards."
"Tenable.sc's best features are the availability model, accident management, and scoring."
"We wish there were a way, beyond providing visibility and automated remediation, to wait on a given remediation, due to a critical aspect, such as the cost associated with a particular upgrade... We would like to see preventive controls that can be applied through Wiz to protect against vulnerabilities that we're not going to be able to remediate immediately."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"The reporting isn't that great. They have executive summaries, but it's only a compliance report that maps all current issues to specific controls. Whether you look at one subscription or project, regardless of the size, you will get a multipage report on how the issues in that account map to that control. Our CSO isn't going to read through that. He won't filter that out or show that to his leadership and say, "Here's what we're doing." It isn't a helpful report. They're working on it, but it's a poor executive summary."
"We're looking at some of the data compliance stuff that they've got Jon offer. I know they're looking at container security, which we gonna be looking at next."
"The only small pain point has been around some of the logging integrations. Some of the complexities of the script integrations aren't supported with some of the more automated infrastructure components. So, it's not as universal. For example, they have great support for cloud formation and other services, but if you're using another type of management utility or governance language for your infrastructure-as-code automation components, it becomes a little bit trickier to navigate that."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"Compliance checks on cloud resources against various industry standards and compliance framework templates need to be improved."
"Their service needs improvement."
"The dashboard customization has room for improvement."
"Reporting should have more options."
"The reporting has a lot of opportunities to continuously improve so that we can continue to show value."
"Currently, this solution is somewhat expensive."
"Check Point tools need to improve the latency in the portal since they take a long time to load."
"We were demotivated by the lack of native automation modules for the Terraform and Ansible tools."
"I will say it's a lot slower compared to an MS scan. It takes so much longer, so the performance could definitely be worked on."
"The GUI could be improved to have all concerns and priorities use the same GUI, allowing them to see all tickets, assign vulnerabilities, and assign variation failures to each member of their team."
"The solution needs to improve its support. I would like to see a bird's eye view of my network architecture. I would also like to see the continuous view feature in the tool."
"The reporting needs a lot of work on the template."
"Tenable SC could be improved with additional connectivity to external company postures and the capability of managing and sustaining agents in the systems directly without additional platforms in the middle."
"Its reporting can be improved. It is not easy to generate a scan report the way we want. The data is okay, but we can't easily change the template to make it look the way we want."
"Current web page needs improvement, slows down processes."
"At times we have had the typical bugs."
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 5th in Vulnerability Management with 60 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. 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 Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Qualys VMDR and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Forescout Platform. See our Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors and best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Vulnerability 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.
