We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management and SUSE NeuVector based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides robust data security measures, incident detection, and detailed reporting. It offers IAM role control, training features, and governance support. On the other hand, SUSE NeuVector stands out for its user-friendly interface and automation. NeuVector seamlessly integrates with CI/CD pipelines and supports ISO certification checks. Check Point CloudGuard could be more customizable and improve its vulnerability. NeuVector needs improvements in monitoring, reporting, and hybrid environment integration.
Service and Support: Customers generally have positive experiences with Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management's customer service, citing quick response times and good support. However, some say technical support needs improvement. In contrast, SUSE NeuVector is praised for its helpful and responsive support, although the process can sometimes be complicated.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is quick and easy, typically taking only a few minutes. On the other hand, the setup for SUSE NeuVector can be more challenging, with varying levels of difficulty reported by users. Some users find it easy, while others find it complex. One specific challenge with NeuVector is integrating it with pipelines.
Pricing: Some users consider Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management affordable, while others say the licensing model is a barrier to scaling and suggest a more flexible licensing model. While some SUSE NeuVector users say the price is low, others believe there is room for improvement.
ROI: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides effective cloud management, streamlines compliance, and decreases administrative workload, resulting in a notable return on investment. SUSE NeuVector is particularly advantageous for industries with significant risk and exposure, but other sectors like retail might not see the same return.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management over SUSE NeuVector. It is highly regarded for its strong data protection and comprehensive coverage of cloud infrastructure. Users appreciate its intuitive dashboard and powerful reporting capabilities. SUSE NeuVector users say the initial setup is a chore and the solution offers limited support for scanning IaaS and virtual machines.
"When creating cloud infrastructure, Cloud Native Security evaluates the cloud security parameters and how they will impact the organization's risk. It lets us know whether our security parameter conforms to international industry standards. It alerts us about anything that increases our risk, so we can address those vulnerabilities and prevent attacks."
"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 most valuable features of PingSafe are the asset inventory and issue indexing."
"The offensive security feature is valuable because it publicly detects the offensive and vulnerable things present in our domain or applications. It checks any applications with public access. Some of the applications give public access to certain files or are present over a particular domain. It detects and lets us know with evidence. That is quite good. It is protecting our infrastructure quite well."
"PingSafe offers comprehensive security posture management."
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"They're responsive to feature requests. If I suggest a feature for Prisma, I will need to wait until the next release on their roadmap. Cloud Native Security will add it right away."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"The visibility in our cloud environment is the most valuable feature."
"It learns from behavior, attacks, management, detections, captures packets, real-time analysis, et cetera. It's generating knowledge from a variety of sources for an excellent analysis."
"It offers a range of features tailored to address the unique security challenges."
"We really liked its ease of implementation against our Microsoft Azure environment."
"The rulesets and the findings are valuable. The actual core functionality of it and the efficacy of events are great."
"Overall, it provides good security."
"People implementing this solution are concerned with addressing a significant risk, and within the AWS realm, this tool does de-risk substantially."
"The automatic learning and an AI engine help to find more modern vulnerability problems."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"We use PingSafe and also SentinelOne. If PingSafe integrated some of the endpoint security features of SentinelOne, it would be the perfect one-stop solution for everything. We wouldn't need to switch between the products. At my organization, I am responsible for endpoint security and vulnerability management. Integrating both functions into one application would be ideal because I could see all the alerts, heat maps, and reports in one console."
"It does not bring much threat intel from the outside world. All it does is scan. If it can also correlate things, it will be better."
"Cloud Native Security's reporting could be better. We are unable to see which images are impacted. Several thousand images have been deployed, so if we can see some application-specific information in the dashboard, we can directly send that report to the team that owns the application. We'd also like the option to download the report from the portal instead of waiting for the report to be sent to our email."
"PingSafe's current documentation could be improved to better assist customers during the cluster onboarding process."
"The recommended actions aren't always specific, so it might suggest recommendations that don't apply to the particular infrastructure code I'm reviewing."
"Customized queries should be made easier to improve PingSafe."
"The cost has the potential for improvement."
"I would like additional integrations."
"The integration process could be enhanced by enabling integration at the organizational level rather than requiring the manual setup of individual accounts."
"Down the road, we would like to see automation. That is probably a feature that most people want. If they can automate patching a vulnerability, it will be much easier."
"It does not support on-premise deployments such as VMware Tanzu, and this has been a major drawback when it comes to integrations with some applications."
"The rules are not well-tuned, and many of them generate false positives or nonsensical results."
"The performance can be better. Sometimes, the performance is not up to the mark. There is also integration complexity with third-party software and tools."
"The security of Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management could improve. There are always new security issues coming out."
"The user interface could be improved. Sometimes, the visibility is not immediately available for the environment. We have the native servers that come with the solutions, but we cannot see them in the Check Point log. Another issue is with the integrated file monitoring. It would make sense to have stuff like file integrity monitoring and malware scanning available within this module because we don't want to integrate another product."
"There are opportunities for improvement that can be addressed through a roadmap."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 5th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 64 reviews while SUSE NeuVector is ranked 15th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 7 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6, while SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP writes "Threat intel integration provides us visibility in case any workload is communicating with suspicious or blacklisted IPs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, AWS GuardDuty, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Qualys VMDR, whereas SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Sysdig Falco, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Sysdig Secure. See our Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. SUSE NeuVector report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
