We performed a comparison between Cisco ACI and SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud and Data Center Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It improves security and automation."
"The flexibility of adding new components with minimal impact on existing services running in the data center is a key benefit of this ACI-based solution."
"It is easy to use because you have all the information coming from the same technology."
"We can support policy based on our intent, then that gets rendered into the policy that we will be using for Fabric."
"The most important aspect of Cisco ACI in my opinion is the ease of management. Other solutions, like traditional solutions and pricier solutions—or even fabric and PAT—you have to do many configurations on a box-to-box basis, With Cisco ACI, you go on the AP and do some "next, next finish" installer."
"The most valuable feature is programmability, where we can manage a network via APIs and software, as opposed to having to manage complex hardware."
"The most valuable feature is the data center communication."
"The most useful feature in the ACI is a feature called Service Graph."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"PingSafe stands out for its user-friendly interface and intuitive software, making it easy to navigate and use."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"My favorite feature is Storyline."
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"The solution is a good alerting tool."
"Technical support needs to be more helpful. It's rare that you get a knowledgeable person."
"Customer support for ACI needs improvement. Many customers prefer HPE because their internal support is different and easier to integrate with existing networks. This lack of awareness of ACI's capabilities makes customers stick to traditional networking."
"I can recommend that Cisco improve its execution."
"Cisco SDN will only work with its own devices, so that's a downside."
"The integration has room for improvement. There should be a drag-and-drop interface for configuring the integration where you connect some arrows to boxes, and the system takes care of the configuration. Right now, they have something similar, but it's limited. You have to take care of some things yourself. That is one area that the solution can work on. It's easy now, but it's much easier in other solutions."
"The way the objects are oriented on it are not as straightforward as they should be."
"The additional features I would like to see included in the next releases are support for our policy-based routing. There are endpoint issues that are there now in the code. Hopefully, these will get fixed in the future code."
"An area for improvement in Cisco ACI is security, which Cisco needs to enhance in the solution. Though Cisco ACI uses a whitelist model, you must purchase an external product, such as a security firewall solution, to make whitelisting work, which the customer could find expensive. For example, you're a customer who has Cisco ACI, and the solution doesn't have IP-based filtering, so as a customer, you've purchased Cisco ACI. However, you still need to buy another product for security, and some customers wouldn't like that. However, some customers prefer to go with Cisco ACI because of its scalability and flexibility versus other solutions such as Juniper and Aruba. Technical support for Cisco ACI also needs improvement, particularly in product knowledge."
"I'd like to see better onboarding documentation."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"When we request any changes, they must be reflected in the next update."
"After closing an alert in Cloud Native Security, it still shows as unresolved."
"In addition to the console alerts, I would like PingSafe to also send email notifications."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"In terms of ease of use, initially, it is a bit confusing to navigate around, but once you get used to it, it becomes easier."
"PingSafe is an excellent CSPM tool, but the CWPP features need to improve, and there is a scope for more application security posture management features. There aren't many ASPM solutions on the market, and existing ones are costly. I would like to see PingSafe develop into a single pane of glass for ASPM, CSPM, and CWPP. Another feature I'd like to see is runtime protection."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ACI is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 97 reviews while SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is ranked 7th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 77 reviews. Cisco ACI is rated 8.0, while SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco ACI writes "Stable, easy to extend, scalable, and has a host-based routing feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security writes "Provides excellent workload telemetry, hunting capabilities, and deep visibility ". Cisco ACI is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Nuage Networks and Juniper Contrail Networking, whereas SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Orca Security, AWS GuardDuty and Sysdig Secure. See our Cisco ACI vs. SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security 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.
