No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco Security Cloud Control vs Tufin Orchestration Suite comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Security Cloud Control
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
11th
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tufin Orchestration Suite
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
182
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Security Cloud Control is 4.7%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tufin Orchestration Suite is 14.3%, down from 22.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tufin Orchestration Suite14.3%
Cisco Security Cloud Control4.7%
Other81.0%
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

FS
Security Engineer at Metrobank
Automation reduces intervention and speeds up threat prevention
Our primary use case for Cisco Defense Orchestrator is the automation of playbooks. We primarily use it for this purpose to streamline processes The most valuable feature is the automation, as it reduces user intervention and allows us to focus on other tasks. Since the system is automated,…
Vulnerability control saves audit costs and reduces expenses for organizations
Tufin Orchestration Suite is not commonly used in Thailand due to a lack of local support, and many customers are switching to AlgoSec or other vendors. The analytics features of Tufin Orchestration Suite are challenging to use and require technical expertise, which is a concern as there is not much knowledge in this field in Thailand. The issue of technical knowledge, especially regarding English language proficiency, is significant for government and some companies, making Tufin Orchestration Suite harder to use.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We are using this solution for filtering and blocking some websites, as a firewall, and as the main tool for network segmentation and intrusion prevention, blocking malware and malicious activity."
"The main return on investment is time, and the first time a firewall went down the savings probably exceeded what CDO costs."
"The most valuable feature is the automation, as it reduces user intervention and allows us to focus on other tasks."
"The ability to see the uptimes on the different VPNs that we have configured for site-to-site."
"Cisco Defense Orchestrator is a very great solution to centralizing device management and security."
"It is saving us at least a week's worth of work because we can log in and instantly see what version all the ASAs are at and which ones need to be upgraded."
"Cisco Defense Orchestrator has useful guides for the steps that need to follow by users."
"When we're looking to the policies, it identifies the shadow rules. It notifies us about anything that will supersede other rules."
"What I like most is the end to end view which is quite important for supporting the design teams."
"We can get reports with Tufin at anytime. We can have automated reports, even with security and compliance."
"The product is good at auditing the changes that we make in our environment."
"The solution has helped us to reduce the time it takes to make changes; with Tufin, it takes ten to 15 minutes, whereas before it was 30 minutes or more."
"We have had no performance issues."
"The most valuable feature is the compliance check and the recommendations that it makes."
"Policy management and the cartography of the network have been the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it reduces both the time required and the number of errors when making changes."
 

Cons

"It hasn't really improved our organization. It has been more like a PoC which was spun up and played with for a little while, and we haven't gotten back to it."
"They can centralize all products and provide a correlation about an incident and the response. They can also provide an on-premises solution. Currently, Cisco Defense Orchestrator is just for cloud deployments, not for on-premises deployments. Customers have to manage it on the cloud. We are based in Vietnam, and most of the customers here prefer to have on-premises deployments. Customers, especially from banking and government sectors, do not prefer to do anything on the cloud. Some of the small enterprises use the cloud."
"The main thing that would useful for us would the logging and monitoring. I have to check it out, to get the beta, because I don't have access to them... I wanted CDO to be a central place so where I could do everything but right now I don't think that's possible. I really don't want to go back and forth between this and FMC. Maybe the logging portion, when I look at it, will give me some similarities."
"There could be some slight improvements to navigation."
"They need to work on the user interface. It needs to be improved to make it more user-friendly."
"There could be some slight improvements to navigation. In some of the navigation you've got to go back to be able to get into where you need to be once you've made a change. If I make a change, I've then got to go back to submit and send the change."
"When logging into the device, we sort of had problems with it staying in sync. If somebody made a change onsite, it wouldn't do an automatic sync. It would have to wait, as you would have to do a manual sync up."
"It would be a better product if it incorporated device control for third-party products easily."
"It's a bit clunky, but that may be because of different environments, and it is struggling to get the information."
"It needs better correlation so that it's easier to not have to look for information underneath all the data."
"There are some missing features we'd like to see them add in the future."
"Our biggest challenge now is we have new management; when we send them the reports, they're not really happy with the reporting structure of it."
"I have seen some issues with the stability. One of the things that we noticed was when R18 was released about one or two years back, it couldn't discover the newer versions of firewalls, then we had to upgrade it."
"Tufin should do a better part of educating their users because it's quite complicated."
"One thing it's not currently able to do is remove rules."
"There's a need for an improved network map."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is covered under the CIsco Enterprise License Agreement (ELA). So, it is licensed and ours."
"It is about a $100 per year for an ASA 5506 firewall, and from there it keeps going up if you have a bigger box. For example, the 5516 is $200 to $300 per year."
"I work with a lot of clients, and the price or value of the Cisco Defense Orchestrator can vary from one client to another. If you have a lot of Cisco solutions, the price of the Cisco Defense Orchestrator is justified. Whereas if you have some security components from other vendors, such as Check Point or Palo Alto. This solution would be a pretty expensive proposition considering that they don't integrate with them well."
"After our free trial was done we got a subscription for three years and it was under $3,000 or so. It's part of the EA we already paid for, so I don't know what it would be if it was a la carte."
"If you compare to what is available on the market, they are in the same range with respect to pricing."
"It's around £500 per unit for a three-year license."
"Licensing is on a customer by customer basis."
"Our evaluation showed that Tufin's features were on par with AlgoSec, but Tufin was the better financial choice."
"There are ways to deploy the license to different types of firewall. However, if we decide to change the physical brand of the firewall, we need to go back to Tufin and modify the licensing. This is a hassle."
"It is expensive, but as compared to other players, it's more or less okay. Their pricing is not very transparent. This is my biggest point regarding Tufin. I've never seen a price list or something like that. It's always individual, and in many cases, it's very confusing to know what is the base and what is the price."
"Our licensing fees are approximately $100,000 USD yearly."
"I had a bad experience with the financial department, and the price is too high. The software does work and does the job. The solution is worth the money. If I had a different partner to implement the solution, it would have been worth the price."
"Its price is reasonable, but it could be lower. It has been cost-effective for us. We have a contract for three years."
"We have seen ROI from the side of operations, and we'll probably get to more of that as time goes on. However it took a while to get to that point."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business29
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise153
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Cisco Defense Orchestrator?
Cisco Defense Orchestrator should be made more user-friendly overall. Currently, to use it effectively, one must be specific with the rule set that needs to be set up. Additionally, I suggest impro...
What is your primary use case for Cisco Defense Orchestrator?
Our primary use case for Cisco Defense Orchestrator is the automation of playbooks. We primarily use it for this purpose to streamline processes.
What advice do you have for others considering Cisco Defense Orchestrator?
Those who want to use Cisco Defense Orchestrator should build their own use case and see if it fits their environment. The most significant benefit for us is the response time because it automates ...
What needs improvement with Tufin SecureCloud?
Tufin Orchestration Suite ( /products/tufin-orchestration-suite-reviews ) is not commonly used in Thailand due to a lack of local support, and many customers are switching to AlgoSec or other vendo...
What is your primary use case for Tufin SecureCloud?
I have primarily used Skybox and AlgoSec ( /products/algosec-reviews ). I have also interacted with FireMon for compiling. However, I am not currently working with ACA, and I don't have any project...
What advice do you have for others considering Tufin SecureCloud?
There is potential for improvement in explaining the analytics in the dashboard for Tufin Orchestration Suite. Tufin Orchestration Suite does provide good monitoring; however, interpreting the grap...
 

Also Known As

Cisco Defense Orchestrator, CDO
Tufin SecureCloud
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Insurance Company of British Columbia, Shawmut
3M, AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, BNP Parabas, ConocoPhillips, Deutsche Bank, GE, IBM, Pfizer, United States Postal Service 
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Security Cloud Control vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.