We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management and Aqua Security Platform 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 a wide range of data security measures, including incident detection and detailed reporting. It also offers IAM role control and governance support. Aqua Security Platform excels in container security and on-demand patching. Users also liked its sandboxing features. Check Point CloudGuard could enhance its false positive rate and vulnerability assessments. Aqua Security Platform could reduce its resource consumption optimization while improving its log ingestion and integration with other tools.
Service and Support: Customers have generally expressed satisfaction with Check Point customer service, noting quick response times and positive support experiences, but some users say there is room for improvement. Aqua Security Platform's customer service has also been praised for being responsive and helpful, although a few users mentioned having to resolve issues on their own. Some said Aqua should provide more local support to customers in different regions.
Ease of Deployment: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management's initial setup is straightforward and quick, while Aqua Security Platform's setup can be more complex and time-consuming, especially for larger environments.
Pricing: Some regard Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management as a budget-friendly option, but others perceive it as costly. Aqua Security Platform's licensing is moderate and not based on user count, but some say the price could be lower.
ROI: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides a significant return on investment by effectively addressing compliance issues and minimizing administrative work. Users have not provided feedback on Aqua Security Platform's ROI so far.
Comparison Results: Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is preferred over Aqua Security Platform. Users praise Check Point for its comprehensive data protection and 360 coverage of cloud infrastructure. Check Point offers granular reporting and customizable rulesets. Aqua Security Platform users complained about the complexity of its setup processes and suggested improvements in reporting, logging, and resource consumption.
"I like CSPM the most. It captures a lot of alerts within a short period of time. When an alert gets triggered on the cloud, it throws an alert within half an hour, which is very reasonable. It is a plus point for us."
"With PingSafe, it's easy to onboard new accounts."
"The most valuable features of PingSafe are the asset inventory and issue indexing."
"It's helped free up staff time so that they can work on other projects."
"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."
"I did a lot of research before signing up and doing the demo. They have a good reputation as far as catching threats early on."
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"From what I understand, the initial setup is simple."
"Aqua Security allowed us to gain visibility into the vulnerabilities that were present in the container images, that were being rolled out, the amount of risk that we were introducing to the platform, and provided us a look into the container environment by introducing access control mechanisms. In addition, when it came to runtime-level policies, we could restrict container access to resources in our environment, such as network-level or other application-level access."
"The container security element of this product has been very valuable to our organization."
"Support is very helpful."
"The solution was very user-friendly."
"The most helpful feature of Aqua Security is Drift Prevention, which is a feature that allows images to be immutable. In addition, one of the main reasons we went with Aqua Security is because it provides strong protection when it comes to runtime security."
"The most valuable features are that it's easy to use and manage."
"The new scanning function is a valuable feature that wasn't available until recently."
"The posture management and remediation features are the most valuable. We use GSL Builder to build custom rules in alignment with our organization's policies. CloudGuard has canned rules using multiple standard frameworks, but we also have additional rules."
"It provides critical insights that enable the IT team to plan and launch smart investigations when there are security breaches."
"The solution offers an excellent price, benefit, and installation relationship."
"The initial setup is easy and not complex at all."
"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)."
"The most valuable feature is the single dashboard that enables us to manage the entire cloud environment from one place."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to work with the APIs to integrate into our own backend systems."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"I used to work on AWS. At times, I would generate a normal bug in my system, and then I would check PingSafe. The alert used to come after about three and a half hours. It used to take that long to generate the alert about the vulnerability in my system. If a hacker attacks a system and PingSafe takes three to four hours to generate an alert, it will not be beneficial for the company. It would be helpful if we get the alert in five to ten minutes."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"PingSafe's current documentation could be improved to better assist customers during the cluster onboarding process."
"We recently adopted a new ticket management solution, so we've asked them to include a connector to integrate that tool with Cloud Native Security directly. We'd also like to see Cloud Native Security add a scan for personally identifying information. We're looking at other tools for this capability, but having that functionality built into Cloud Native Security would be nice. Monitoring PII data is critical to us as an organization."
"When we get a new finding from PingSafe, I wish we could get an alert in the console, so we can work on it before we see it in the report. It would be very useful for the team that is actively working on the PingSafe platform, so we can close the issue the same day before it appears in the daily report."
"When you find a vulnerability and resolve it, the same issue will not occur again. I want PingSafe to block the same vulnerability from appearing again. I want something like a playbook where the steps that we take to resolve an issue are repeated when that issue happens again."
"There is room for improvement in the current active licensing model for PingSafe."
"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"They want to release improvements to their product to work with other servers because now there are more focused on the Kubernetes environment. They need to improve the normal servers. I would like to have more options."
"Since we are working from home, we would like to have the proper training for Aqua."
"I would like Aqua Security to look into is the development of a web security portal."
"Sometimes I got stressed with the UI."
"Aqua Security could improve the forwarding of logging into Splunk and into other tools, it should be easier."
"It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"The Check Point solution is somewhat expensive."
"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 setup can be better. With every other Check Point product, the setup is scripted. You just approve versions, and then you are off. The setup for this solution is still very much manual. I would like to see that transition to more of a scripted setup."
"The technical support could be better, but I do not know of any other needed improvements."
"Dome9 should also support deployments that are on-premises and in a hybrid cloud."
"I would like an interface more adapted to cell phones or tablets."
"I strongly advise that the multi-layered security system of Check Point often undergoes updates and new versions keep coming."
"The main issue that we found with Dome9 is that we have a default rule set with better recommendations that we want to use. So, you do a clone of that rule set, then you do some tweaks and customizations, but there is a problem. When they activate the default rule set with the recommendations and new security measures, it doesn't apply the new security measures to your clones profile. Therefore, you need to clone the profile again. We are already writing a report to Check Point."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 11th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 16 reviews while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 8th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 64 reviews. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Aqua Cloud Security Platform writes "Reliable with good container scanning and a straightforward setup". On the other hand, 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". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and SUSE NeuVector, whereas Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, AWS GuardDuty, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Qualys VMDR. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security 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.
