What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tufin?

Tuffin is expensive, and we have to explain to our customers the benefit for them to purchase. If we explain the benefits in the correct way they do not mind the price. We typically do costing for the customer for three to five years. We make the general total cost of ownership at the beginning of a project for our customers.

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. The solution is paid monthly. We paid approximately €‎300,000.

The price of Tufin could be lower.

The licensing costs for this solution are decent for the services provided. From my perspective, the prices should be higher because the organization that often uses this solution is critical.

Licensing costs are charged every year.

I can't speak to the exact cost of the licensing. The pricing is somewhere in the middle. It's quite normal and not overly costly. I'd rate it a three out of five in terms of affordability. There are no extra costs involved.

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.

There is a permanent license for devices, but it's not relative to a device itself. Once you purchase 10 licenses for virtual appliances or virtual context, you can put them into different virtual firewalls, but you can reuse these licenses for other devices if you don't need them for the old ones. For example, if you deploy new ones, and you don't need these licenses for the old context, you can redeploy them in another one relative to a device, like a Mac address. The problem is that once you redeploy the license for another context, another rhythm, or another virtual appliance, you lose all the history and reports from the Syslog from the old one.

The pricing is reasonable.

As an architect, the pricing seems expensive to me. For what it does, I would say it's expensive.

Because we're quite a large company, the price wasn't too much of a factor for us.

I don't have any issue with the pricing, however, I was not the purchaser. I can't speak to the exact cost for our company.

It's quite an expensive solution.

I suggest talking with Tufin about the flexibility of the pricing structure.

Tufin is expensive but it is very good.

We haven't purchased the license yet for SecureChange. We do have plans to buy it next year. The additional piece, which we are buying and doesn't include our other solution, is close to 300,000.

The licensing costs are a significant amount of money.

While licensing varies greatly, it is about $50,000 a year.

The licensing costs are around $250,000 to $300,000. 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.

The cost is pretty high. It's close to seven figures. That only goes to show our commitment to using the solution and the products to reach our goals.

I just wrote a purchase order for it. It is a $150,000 a year.

Our licensing costs are three million total and then we pay for maintenance, which is an additional cost for three years.

I believe our cost is more than $100,000 per year.

The seller of Tufin, when I wanted the solution, was very flexible because the cost on the lease was very high in Latin America. So, he was able to reduce the cost.

The cost is too much. For us it's around $40,000.

Licensing is on a customer by customer basis.

Turning on certain options in the solution comes at an additional cost.

Our licensing fees are more than $100,000 USD per year.

Our licensing fees are approximately $100,000 USD yearly.

Our licensing fees are approximately $250,000 USD.

Our licensing costs are pretty low. We were grandfathered in, so we are at about $35,000 per year.

Licensing is available in both perpetual and subscription models, and it appears to be good for our scalable environments. We have also needed to work with what we call small enforcement point pricing, which we'll probably get more into as people expand.

There is no issue with the pricing because we used a VM. That kept the cost low, as compared to an appliance. The licensing cost quote met our budget.

I was involved with the pricing at the start. But then management took over that issue. In terms of affordability, this company is using it, so it seems they are fine with it. We just provide management with our requirements and it's their concern and responsibility to bring us what we need. Since we still have this solution, I think they are fine with it. But it's a management call.

It's not that expensive, except for Security Groups. For us, just the Security Groups were about half of the total price. The total was about €500,000 a year, of which €200,000 was for Security Groups. For the rest, it's not that expensive, given all the benefits we will get and all the time we will save.

The current licensing scheme is quite confusing but it is clearer than the old one. If you have one MDS you just buy the MDS license and the gateway license. That's most of it. Before this, they broke it down into VS, virtual environment, physical environment, single boxes, cluster boxes. Now the licensing part is much more straightforward. If you have ten gateways you don't need to define one as a single and another as a cluster gateway. Pricing is quite high. We did compare it with AlgoSec but the pricing is not much different between the two.

Pricing played a big part here. We didn't present AlgoSec or FireMon. We got good support from Tufin directly. We managed to position it with an effective price for the customer. The customer had evaluated other products but, due to price as well as support, they chose Tufin.