Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

It is an important application for controlling and monitoring firewall rules. It is useful for making and monitoring the changes.

Its price is reasonable, but it could be lower. 

It could have a more effective approach for creating and changing rules. It could provide advice or suggestions for a better understanding of rules and changing the rules. There should be suggestions for the rules that need to be changed to make them less risky.

I have been using this solution for eight months. We have recently done an upgrade, and we are using the latest version.

It is stable.

We have not been using it for a long time. So far, it is scalable for us. We have more or less ten people.

Their technical support is good.

We have worked with AlgoSec but in a restricted topology of the network. Both of these solutions are useful. It mainly comes down to the price. Even though Tufin is more costly, it has been more cost-effective for us, but it is not the same for all companies. It also depends on the integrator.

Its initial setup has medium complexity. It was not complex, but it was also not easy. We had some problems because it was a fresh installation.

Its price is reasonable, but it could be lower. It has been cost-effective for us. We have a contract for three years.

I would rate Tufin a nine out of ten. 

We're using this solution mainly to get some audit reports regarding the policy installations on our firewalls. We aren't using any changes or other features, and we're not installing policies automatically. We're just using it to collect some log data like who installed something and what they did.

It's user-friendly. It's easy to understand menus on the web GUI. That's a good feature for us. I can say that it's doing what it's supposed to do. It also integrates well with other products like Check Point.

It would be better if they modernized the web GUI. The web interface GUI is simple and not complicated, but it's also too old. It would also be better if they had an SMS gateway integration. I would like to have some integrations with other products like Jira for change management and incident management.

I have been using Tufin for about three years.

Tufin is a stable product. We're not having any issues. Sometimes we do have problems with the product, but it wasn't related to Tufin. Sometimes when we had an upgrade on the firewall product itself, we encountered some problems.

It's a scalable product. We have about 50 gateways, and Tufin collects data from all of them. We also have a management server, and we've integrated two important classes of databases. We're only using three instances, and we're not having any issues.

Tufin support is good, and we managed to implement this solution by ourselves. But it would be better if some engineers from Tufin joined a session and did stuff together with us. That would have been much appreciated. I would expect them to organize the session and provide some support, at least in the beginning.

I also have AlgoSec, and it seems to be much more complicated. I would say that Tufin is much more compatible with Check Point firewalls. That was the main reason for choosing Tufin over AlgoSec.

The initial setup is complex. I didn't have any Linux knowledge in my past, but I could say Tufin support is good at it. When we need to get some support, they respond quickly. They explained everything to finalize issues regarding the installation.

We implemented this solution by ourselves. It took us one or two hours to install and deploy this solution.

The price is on the cheaper side. I'm not planning on adding additional resources, and I don't expect any additional costs.

Not before but after using tufin actively about a year, we have evaluated algosec as an alternative solution. It was also well designed alternative but it was not well integrated as tufin did with Checkpoint

There aren't many products like Tufin and AlgoSec. I think both products are good, but when people are using Check Point applications, we recommend Tufin.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Tufin a ten.

The solution is predominantly used for managing firewall changes, policy changes, and understanding those aspects.

Most people use it for the basics, even though they could use it for a lot more.

The most valuable feature is being able to customize your own clarity to that aspect of change management.

Having better visibility of what is going on. If it gets out of control, you can keep it in your head no matter how smart your administrators are.

From what I have seen, it's user-friendly.

It's a bit clunky, but that may be because of different environments, and it is struggling to get the information. It's possible that the performance issue is because of the network and not the right architecture.

I would like to see anything that is graphical, as much graphical representation of things. Modeling, and what-ifs. It becomes more intuitive and allows you to close some of the gaps between drawing stakeholders in, for example. If they ask "Why are you spending so much money on this tool?"  or "Why are you doing this?", you can show them examples and it becomes more obvious.

I would like to see AI elements included with this solution. There is quite a lot of human element in understanding the consequences of change within the firewall environment, but they might benefit from more of an AI element as well.

I am a security architect and I have been involved with it periodically for approximately five years.

It's a reliable solution.

It's a scalable product. I have dealt with companies that are pretty sizeable, and it seems to handle it.

I personally have not contacted technical support, but the information that is available on their website is pretty useful, it's pretty good.

You need to allow a fair amount of time. That is the case for all firewall management tools.

It gives the appearance of being straightforward to get going but they need a bit of time particularly to do the sorting of the matrices for example.

When planning, people should estimate it then double it, just to make sure they get things right.

Price could always be better, but there are always consequences. Normally, there are other issues that come into play. For example, you pay more and expect to lean on the vendor more for the services and support.

I have recommended this solution from time to time and I would definitely recommend it to others.

I would rate Tufin a seven out of ten.

Our customers use Tufin to manage multiple firewall access rules through a single console. We have done on-prem, public, and private deployments of this solution.

It provides very good reports. It can easily integrate with multiple firewalls, such as Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, and Checkpoint. 

We can push a policy from Tufin to a firewall, which is a very good feature. We can monitor all access rules and the operating system of a firewall.

Currently, we are able to monitor access rules and the operating system of a firewall. It would be great if we can also monitor the configuration of the firewall through Tufin.

I have been using this solution for the last three years.

It is very stable. It has good stability.

It has very good scalability.

Their technical support is good.

Its initial deployment is not very easy. It is a little bit complex. After the deployment, it is easy to work with it in the GUI. Its deployment takes at least two or three days.

Customers usually evaluate AlgoSec. 

I would advise others to go for it to manage firewalls from multiple brands in a single console.

I would rate Tufin a nine out of ten.

We have a lot of ASA firewalls. We primarily use the product in order to lay down the rules and try to find out if there are any duplicate rules that need to be cleaned up, et cetera. It is mostly tasks like that.

The solution is very straightforward to use. It makes doing our work easy. The product is very good at helping us clean up rules.

We've found the stability to be quite good.

The solution is quite scalable.

The older version that we have doesn't support some newer firewall vendors. I'm not sure what the status of integration is right now on the latest version, however, it would be nice if they updated the older versions to allow for better integrations with firewalls. 

Sometimes the solution does take a bit of time to load. That said, it is a pretty old version, and that may be the main reason this is the case. It's possible that if we just upgraded to the latest version everything would go faster. 

Everybody wants to implement some kind of standard rules, however, it's difficult to standardize everything due to the fact that each company is unique. That said, if there was some sort of universal guide to ensuring firewall rules were compliant, that would be helpful. 

I've been using the solution for a year and a half to two years at this point. It's been a while. I've definitely used it over the last 12 months or so.

The stability has been good. I haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The stability has been reliable in terms of performance.

I find the product to be easy to scale. Adding new firewalls is pretty straightforward and it handles the process well. If a company needs to expand and add more firewalls it shouldn't be a problem at all.

I would say six or seven people are using it and they're network operation people who have to deal with day-to-day firewall management, putting in new firewall rules, et cetera.

I've never had an opportunity to reach out to technical support. I can't speak to how knowledgeable or responsive they are. I have no experience.

The initial setup happened before my tenure with the company. I was not present when it was set up, and therefore I can't directly speak to my experiences with any implementation. I do not have a sense of if it was difficult or straightforward, and I can't say how long the deployment took. 

There is a bit of maintenance required, in terms of adding new rules, et cetera. We have individuals on staff that can handle that.

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.

While I was using Tuffin, I did want to evaluate AlgoSec. I wanted to compare the two to see which was better. In the end, I've decided I would stick with this product.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

We are not using the most up-to-date version of the product. We are using one of the previous versions. I cannot at this time remember the version number, however, it was pretty old. We had a plan to upgrade, and then unfortunately ended up not doing that.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten as it helps us do our work. We're mostly quite happy with its capabilities.

We were primarily using the solution in order to grade the firewall rules.

How the solution benefits the organization is something that is currently being tested. We're considering doing something different, as we just used this product as a POC.

The compliance aspect of the solution is its most valuable aspect.

The stability is very good.

You can easily scale the solution if you need to.

The number of features is very robust - and there are a large number of features. That's a huge selling point, which is why its popularity is where it is.

I have heard many people complain that there is a high level of complexity. It may make it difficult to work with for some people. That said, I don't have those issues with the product.

The initial setup can be tough.

The product could use better integration with the cloud.

I've been using the solution for years at this point, It's been a long time.

The stability is very, very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is good.

The scalability of the product is excellent. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so relatively easily.

In our case, while I don't have an exact user count, I can say that there were quite a lot of people on the product.

We're talking about shifting potentially away from Tufin, however, if we had kept it would have been used extensively.

While other people have the opinion that it could be better, I've mostly been satisfied with the level of support we've received. They've been okay. I've had three or four run-ins with them and they were all positive experiences.

I also work with AlgoSec. We use both solutions currently.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It's a little difficult, a little tough. New users need to expect this before they get started.

Often, a consultant is involved in the process, as there is a large learning curve, and many companies don't have the bandwidth to ramp up the staff. Bringing on a consultant can speed up the processes a bit.

The deployment took about a month or so.

We're still working on how many people we actually require to handle the maintenance aspect of the product.

Typically, we get a consultant for everything, however, this last deployment, in particular, seemed to be more challenging for the consultant and for the staff.

That said, our experience with the consultant was very good overall.

While we are getting what we need out of the solution in terms of functionality, I haven't really looked into an exact ROI. We got what we were looking to get out of it. 

The billing and licensing aspect of the product is not something I'm a part of. I don't have any insights into the costs involved in using the solution. I cannot see if there's just a flat licensing fee or if there are other costs needed on top of that.

We are considering moving away from the solution currently. We're looking for other options. We might shift towards FireMon, however, nothing is set in stone.

We're just a customer and end-user.

We're likely not using the latest version of the solution. Currently, there is a team that directly supports it. I can't remember the exact version number off-hand.

I'd advise organizations considering the solution to do their homework first and see if they can find out from industry associations and professionals what their experience has been.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for monitoring, automation, policy orchestration, and security.

The most valuable feature is the monitoring. I quite enjoy the monitoring this solution provides. It allows administrators to visualize the traffic flow, and troubleshoot when necessary. It's a useful tool.

The interface is quite user-friendly and intuitive.

The cost of this solution should be improved.

They need to offer more support to vendors, such as Cisco, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Forcepoint.

They have an API, but it needs more service on this.

While technical support is good, they could still improve.

I have been working with Tufin for one year.

It's a stable solution. There are some bugs that they are working on but that is common with any vendor.

They do mention that they don't support specific features from Nexus for some automation but it does actually work, although it is not listed as working.

Technical support is relatively good. They are not the best but they are good.

They could improve but they do respond with accurate responses.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was deployed in less than an hour.

The first time without training, it took an hour or so, but it was quite easy.

It's quite an expensive solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.
I have not worked with any other vendors with this type of solution, for example, FireMon. I haven't worked with it. 

I would recommend it specifically to start with a secure track, which is a monitoring tool. Once the customer sees it, they want the solution. Afterward, for automation and secure change.

I would rate Tufin an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is fo the security of our medical facility. We have a lot of holes in the firewall and we wanted to see the details. For example, we see a lot of traffic between the different zones that we needed to reduce. So we use the solution to eliminate this traffic. It also allows us to have a lot of optimization rules for a good switching policy in the firewall. 

It can quantify and reduce a lot of risks.

I like the deployment and management of this solution. I don't have much experience in that kind of security solution, but I have three years of experience in similar solutions, like AlgoSec. I do some scripts to optimize the solution, such as configuring the API.

Additionally, when we export the report, you can see a lot of logs of all the equipment in the company and we can identify some of the machines or some log station in the network. Also, the user can create some requests to implement the flow and push the rules in the firewall. You can analyze the log and the traffic, you can have a lot of API's, and do some reporting.

In the next release I would like to see better migration in the Cloud because that will allow more visibility in the network.

I have been working with Tufin Orca for one year.

This solution was already deployed and we just manage it.

It is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

I have tons of contact with support. If you have some problems or issues you can contact support and manage the problem together. I did that with a lot of competitors, like Palo Alto on our network. If we have an issue in production, my production team will try to solve it or you can contact support to manage the issue.

I am satisfied with the support.

The initial setup is not complex. It's easy for me because I have some experience and training on it. Now I can do a whole production on the application.

We used an integrator for implementation because I have a colleague who has a lot more experience than me and we worked together to manage that solution.

I would recommend this solution. I think it's a good solution to have. It is good to know what this solution does in the network. You can have a lot of training on it and see a lot of questions from different users in the company.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it an eight.