Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 2024

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

SentinelOne Singularity Clo...
Sponsored
Ranking in Cloud and Data Center Security
5th
Ranking in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
107
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (6th), Container Security (3rd), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (3rd), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (3rd), Compliance Management (2nd)
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation
Ranking in Cloud and Data Center Security
1st
Ranking in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
9th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) (4th), Microsegmentation Software (2nd)
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP
Ranking in Cloud and Data Center Security
9th
Ranking in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (9th), Container Security (7th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (5th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (5th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (4th), Compliance Management (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Cloud and Data Center Security category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 1.5%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is 25.2%, up from 20.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is 0.9%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud and Data Center Security
 

Featured Reviews

Andrew W - PeerSpot reviewer
Tells us about vulnerabilities as well as their impact and helps to focus on real issues
Looking at all the different pieces, it has got everything we need. Some of the pieces we do not even use. For example, we do not have Kubernetes Security. We are not running any K8 clusters, so it is good for us. Overall, we find the solution to be fantastic. There can be additional education components. This may not be truly fair to them because of what the product is going for, but it would be great to see additional education for compliance. It is not a criticism of the tool per se, but anything to help non-development resources understand some of the complexities of the cloud is always appreciated. Any additional educational resources are always helpful for security teams, especially those without a development background.
KlavsThaarup - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers micro segmentation capabilities and easy to setup
It's micro-segmentation The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature. There are always areas for improvement. It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud. So that could be improved. In future releases, I would like to see more integration with other…
Bart Coddens - PeerSpot reviewer
Evolved cloud security with active monitoring but needs interface consistency
The user interface needs work. Sometimes, it is a transition from the old tool to the new CNAPP Two that I currently have, and remnants of the old environment can still be detected. I require consistency in the user interface to ensure everything is streamlined into the same look and feel. More work is needed in fine-tuning the threat data towards your CSPM and activity logs, aligning them with business intelligence, which requires a cohesive console interface. My assessment of CloudGuard CDRs in intrusion detection and threat hunting capabilities is that it still needs some work. All the threat data that comes in, you need to fine tune it a bit.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"We really appreciate the Slack integration. When we have an incident, we get an instant notification. We also use Joe Sandbox, which Singularity can integrate with, so we can verify if a threat is legitimate."
"Cloud Native Security's most valuable features include cloud misconfiguration detection and remediation, compliance monitoring, a robust authentication security engine, and cloud threat detection and response capabilities."
"Singularity Cloud Security's most valuable features are its ease of scalability and comprehensive security measures."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"As a frequently audited company, we value PingSafe's compliance monitoring features. They give us a report with a compliance score for how well we meet certain regulatory standards, like HIPAA. We can show our compliance as a percentage. It's also a way to show that we are serious about security."
"PingSafe released a new security graph tool that helps us identify the root issue. Other tools give you a pass/fail type of profile on all misconfigurations, and those will run into the thousands. PingSafe's graphing algorithm connects various components together and tries to identify what is severe and what is not. It can correlate various vulnerabilities and datasets to test them on the back end to pinpoint the real issue."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"Guardicore makes its own rule set automatically, so we can work fast when creating a rule set."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"The tool is a complete package that offers many features like visibility. You can get a graph with real-time workflows and visibility into server-to-server communication. We get visibility into many things happening within our environment."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"We have more visibility than ever before, appreciating the valuable and proactive insight that we receive from the platform."
"Customer service is very good."
"We like the ability to investigate, analyze, and generate reports."
"Gives us centralized firewall management for both Windows and Linux distros. Also provides a clear view of the security configurations and connections across environments (DMZ, external and internal networks)."
"It offers advanced detection of threats that can harm data from the cloud database."
"My overall product rating is ten out of ten."
"The reporting is quite good. It is the most powerful aspect of this solution."
"Visibility is a key feature. It helps me to validate my overall network posture."
 

Cons

"We've found a lot of false positives."
"Sometimes the Storyline ID is a bit wacky."
"The cloud-based operations might pose challenges in areas with limited or unavailable internet connectivity. Desktop features might be useful for smaller organizations with less complex security needs."
"They could generally give us better comprehensive rules."
"The alerting system of the product is an area that I look at and sometimes get confused about. I feel the alerting feature needs improvement."
"I would like to see the map feature improve. It's good, but it isn't fully developed. It lets us use custom resources and policies but does not allow us to perform some actions. I would also like more custom integration and runtime security for Kubernetes."
"From my personal experience, the alerting system needs to be faster. If something happens in our infrastructure, the alert appears on the dashboard, but I have to log in to the dashboard and refresh it."
"Once all components, including the cloud piece and container runtime piece, integrate further and incorporate an AI layer for better comprehension, it will greatly enhance the utility of Singularity Cloud Security."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"Addressing the large amount of compliance information and benchmarks we need to observe, the tools are becoming our goto dashboards."
"You do need to pay extra in order to get better support."
"I’d like to see more integration with third-party tools. For example, it would be helpful to have an integration between Dome9 and ServiceNow to manage security incidents and security changes."
"I would like to see some AI on the back-end, just to assist with doing analysis and making recommendations."
"Improvements can be made to the user interface."
"The costs are really high if you want the entire capabilities of the platform."
"The false positives can be annoying at times."
"The accuracy of its remediation is a 7.5 out of 10. Before, I would have given it a ten but now, to handle remediation for fully qualified domain names, it's not working as it did in the past. We're finding some difficulties there."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's not expensive. The product is in its initial growth stages and appears more competitive compared to others. It comes in different variants, and I believe the enterprise version costs around $55 per user per year. I would rate it a five, somewhere fairly moderate."
"PingSafe falls somewhere in the middle price range, neither particularly cheap nor expensive."
"The licensing is easy to understand and implement, with some flexibility to accommodate dynamic environments."
"It is cheap."
"While I'm slightly out of touch with pricing, I know SentinelOne is much cheaper than other products."
"PingSafe's primary advantage is its ability to consolidate multiple tools into a single user interface, but, beyond this convenience, it may not offer significant additional benefits to justify its price."
"PingSafe is cost-effective for the amount of infrastructure we have. It's reasonable for what they offer compared to our previous solution. It's at least 25 percent to 30 percent less."
"PingSafe is priced reasonably for our workload."
"Compared to the pricing we were seeing from both Illumio and Edgewise, Guardicore was very competitive."
"Guardicore Centra provides better value for money than NSX, was the other solution that we looked at, which was too expensive for what it does."
"GuardiCore has made some new changes to the license now. We've seen monthly and annual licenses based on a subscription. We have a few clients that pay anywhere from $25,000 a year."
"The pricing is too high."
"The solution is reasonably priced and I would rate it a six out of ten. The tool's licensing costs are yearly."
"The customer would complain about the cost."
"The price is the same as other products in the market. There's no price argument to choose one or the other product, it will cost the customer approximately the same."
"This is not a cheap solution but you have to consider the bigger picture, which is what it is giving you."
"Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is expensive."
"It is difficult to contextualize the pricing because we are used to Indian pricing and licensing."
"Licensing and costs are straightforward, as they have a baseline of 100 workloads within one license and no additional charges."
"​They support either annual licensing or hourly. At the time of our last negotiation, it was either one or the other, you could not mix or match. I would have liked to mix/match. ​"
"Right now, we have licenses on 500 machines, and they are not cheap."
"The license for CloudGuard Posture Management is about $80 a year, and it's based on your cloud footprint, not the number of users. So you could have a million users, and it doesn't matter."
"The pricing is tremendous and super cheap. It is shockingly cheap for what you get out of it. I am happy with that. I hope that doesn't get reported back and they increase the prices. I love the pricing and the licensing makes sense. It is just assets: The more stuff that you have, the more you pay."
"The tool's pricing is moderate. Its licensing costs are yearly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud and Data Center Security solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about PingSafe?
The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best featu...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingSafe?
It is cost-effective compared to other solutions in the market.
What needs improvement with PingSafe?
In version 2, a lot of rules have been deployed for Kubernetes security and CDR, which makes a lot of issues of criti...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Guardicore Centra?
I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. I know other micro-segmentation t...
What do you like most about Guardicore Infection Monkey?
Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy ...
What needs improvement with Guardicore Infection Monkey?
When we have more than one interface, we can only have one policy for both interfaces. Normally, you have assets with...
 

Also Known As

PingSafe
Guardicore Centra, GuardiCore
Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management, Dome9, Check Point CloudGuard Workload Protection, Check Point CloudGuard Intelligence
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Santander, Frontier Airlines, OpenLink, Intermountain Healthcare, Cellcom, BancoBASE
Symantec, Citrix, Car and Driver, Virgin, Cloud Technology Partners
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.