We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard WAF and Cisco SecureX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I find the configuration and real-time monitoring features valuable."
"User attitude reviews help us keep all online users compliant with company regulations and policies."
"The solution offers sophisticated security techniques with unique characteristics that can be particularly valuable for the financial sector, which is where we develop apps."
"Its ability to adapt to our applications and ensure our security policies are followed is a big plus."
"The tool's most valuable feature is AI, which makes operations easier. Moreover, it is easy to deploy."
"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."
"On the endpoint side, the most valuable feature is undoubtedly the cloud-based management capability, along with the ransomware protection, despite not encountering any instances so far."
"It offers high performance and improved productivity for users."
"Using SecureX, a tool provided by Cisco, we can easily integrate it with many of our other Cisco products such as Cisco ISE and many networking devices."
"The most beneficial feature of Cisco SecureX for cybersecurity efforts is its integration with other Cisco solutions and the environment. This sets it apart, as its APIs and overall integration capabilities are very strong. Additionally, its detection capabilities are commendable."
"The forensics are amazing because when you have enrichment, and the solutions talk with each other, when you need it, you have the ability to know everything in the organization: when, why, whatever."
"I like that I don't have to jump around to five different products and log into five different places to view the data that it returns."
"SecureX enables us to have all the threat intelligence and threat event data in one place."
"One of the most valuable features is the simplicity of deploying SecureX. It's very easy to do that and then you gain very detailed visibility into everything that's going on in your network and, obviously, at the device level. There's just a wealth of information that you can pull from all of these products that are part of SecureX. You know exactly if you have an issue or not."
"It has evolved a lot, just that monitoring piece to the current Orchestrator piece. The additional analytics are there. They now have something called Insight, which can basically take data from Microsoft Azure AD and Intune to give us information about our endpoints. This is detailed information about the endpoints, from Secure Endpoint and all these different products. So, it is just constantly evolving. Every time that it evolves, we have more information with more visibility. There are more features that we have that just make everything so much easier, and it is in one place. I don't have to keep going back and forth. I don't have to go to Secure Endpoint and ISE to get the data. I don't have to go to Intune on Microsoft to get the information. It is all in one place."
"Our customers find the product's third-party integrations valuable. Our customers are also impressed with the tool's capability to pick up third-party threat feeds and use that as part of the decision-making process."
"A feature we'd like to see in the future is something that could protect against other attack vectors, with a focus on application protection."
"I advise proactive threat detection intelligence offline, which can also help monitor and ensure system checks and compliances are in place."
"The coding configurations can be simplified to save time for IT teams and developers."
"It was costlier than other solutions."
"Improving the process for handling licensing renewals would be a welcome enhancement."
"I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features."
"In terms of features, I do not have any negatives. Their integration is extremely quick. It is better than others I have been involved with in the past. Their pricing model, however, can be better."
"The documentation of each of the tools that they offer needs to be better."
"The playbooks provided with the product are great, although I would appreciate having more playbooks available. Threats are constantly evolving, so having access to updated playbooks is crucial."
"They could expand into more areas. The more third-parties that we have tied into it, the better. The capabilities are there. As they just continue to involve the product, the more things that you can look into, then the more analytics that you can get. Also, the more data that we can get, then the better off we will be."
"The documentation can be improved and the on-prem integration. The set of applications that it was integrated with wasn't comprehensive."
"One of the improvements the product needs is more integration with collaboration platforms."
"I would like it to integrate with another solution, e.g., DNA. I would like it to connect to that solution, but not the security aspect."
"I'm not sure that I would call it a bug, but sometimes the solution is a little slow."
"The automation and orchestration could be simpler. It could be that all the other parts are that easy to use so that these stick out as a negative, but that's the trickiest part for us. The workflows within the orchestration are just a bit more difficult."
"For us, the biggest sticking point is that the product is not being designed for multi-tenancy use at present, from an MSP perspective."
Check Point CloudGuard WAF is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 30 reviews while Cisco SecureX is ranked 19th in Application Security Tools with 13 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is rated 9.0, while Cisco SecureX is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard WAF writes "Automation capabilities also help streamline security processes and smooths down API integration processes and detects API availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco SecureX writes "Gives our customers visibility and they don't have to go multiple management consoles anymore". Check Point CloudGuard WAF is most compared with SonarQube and Checkmarx One, whereas Cisco SecureX is most compared with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Trend Vision One, Splunk SOAR and Cisco Secure Network Analytics. See our Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. Cisco SecureX report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
