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

Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs Tenable Security Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 29, 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

Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
8th
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
67
Ranking in other categories
Cloud and Data Center Security (9th), Container Security (6th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (6th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (5th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (4th), Compliance Management (6th)
Tenable Security Center
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
4th
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
13th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is 1.5%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Security Center is 7.8%, down from 13.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Yokesh Mani - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to write custom rules and policies in the UI with limited coding knowledge
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. For example, let's say it's showing a process violation. It should be able to do some additional malware scanning in that particular bucket to get some additional information. I don't want to integrate with another third-party tool or go to the native server to check something. It would be helpful to have integrated monitoring and malware scanning for the file types. There are a few flaws with the security management portal where I have limited visibility into the workload protection features. There is no error visibility where I can see the communication and workflow between services. Some of the dashboards need to be fine-tuned if they are not customized. For example, I cannot customize anything on the effective risk management dashboard. Some of the information is not correct for my tenant. With respect to passwords and user management, there are no policies I can measure at the user level. If the user was created more than six months ago, you don't need to worry about that password or do anything like two-factor authentication associated with that user. They can still log in after six months or one year. It's also a challenge to use CloudGuard's agentless workload posture with AWS. An Azure storage is summed up with a CNAPP encryption by default. We tried onboarding this data, but the problem is the attachment is not done. After a few days, we identified that it was impossible to do the encryption detection. But CloudGuard's default rules say that this has to be encrypted. The AWS module says that we cannot access this volume with this encryption, so we cannot use an agentless workload posture with AWS because of this. It is a best practice to ensure that all the volumes are being encrypted. Without the encryption, how can I do this? It is a big challenge for CloudGuard.
JoaoManso - PeerSpot reviewer
Good dashboards, reporting, and technical support, with a low rate of errors
Parallel scanning would be a nice improvement because it would speed up the detection process. It is not possible to search for vulnerabilities and do compliance checking at the same time. Rather, they are done one after the other. The integration is very good, although it still needs to improve. For example, it would be useful to have better integration with other tools in the space of identity management (IAM). As it is now, integration with new tools has to be developed specifically, so it's not easy. We would like to see better collection capability for external data that will help to improve detection and discovery.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It offers security insights and recommendations to assist organizations in acting and remediating issues swiftly."
"Checkpoint posture management gives you visibility across your entire cloud infrastructure, so it helps you with management, maintenance, and compliance. With visibility across all these cloud platforms, you can protect against compromised credentials or identity theft."
"The administration portal panel is very intuitive."
"Dome9 continues to be a major piece of our cloud security architecture and has given our senior leadership team a high degree of confidence in our ability to protect our cloud environment."
"We really liked its ease of implementation against our Microsoft Azure environment."
"Overall, it provides good security."
"Alerts of cloud activity happening across all accounts is helpful."
"I love the work involved in maintaining and scaling security services and configurations across multiple public clouds using this solution, versus using native native cloud security controls. It is so much better. The different cloud platforms all have their own way that they handle a lot of the stuff that Dome9 handles. Even within their platform, they are in a lot of disparate places, e.g., in AWS, there are five different tools. You have to jump between them to get the same information that you can just pull in automatically on Dome9, which is just one platform. We are using multiple platforms, so that makes it even more complicated and time consuming if you had to just rely on them to get all of your information. Whereas, it's all just summarized and put together on the Dome9 end."
"It is a very good and user-friendly product."
"The product is our second solution, and we are happy that it meets our requirements."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the vulnerability assessment."
"I think that this is a good solution for evaluating vulnerability in the network."
"The valauble feature is compliance reporting system."
"Tenable.sc is user-friendly."
"It basically reviews our threat landscape vulnerability."
"Very customizable with a lot of templates."
 

Cons

"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."
"We were demotivated by the lack of native automation modules for the Terraform and Ansible tools."
"Making basic rules is easy, but it's complex if you want to do something a little more nuanced. I've been unable to make some rules that I wanted. I couldn't evaluate some values or parameters of the components I look for. I haven't always been able to assess them."
"Automation and advanced threat prevention have room for improvement."
"In Dome9, there should be a policy validation option where we can validate the policy before we push it into production."
"When rules change, it messes up the remediation. They haven't found a fix for that yet. The remediation rule goes into limbo. It's an architectural design flaw within their end compliance engine—a serious bug."
"Their service needs improvement."
"I would like to see tighter integration with other compliance tools, like Chef Compliance, in addition to Inspector."
"Tenable.sc's user interface could be improved."
"The biggest issue I have with the solution is when I'm using the scanning it picks up the original DNS of that device. That means, before we image it and actually change the DNS to something within our company structure, it'll just be random numbers and letters and Tenable will stick to that DNS for a long time."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
"The product should provide risk-based vulnerability management."
"The web application is not very functional."
"Tenable SC can improve by making it easier to create complicated reports and have more effectiveness in the remediation area for comparison between the scans."
"The solution should provide better web application features and support."
"If I want to have a very low-managed scan policy, it's a lot of work to create something which is very basic. If I use a tool like Nmap, all I have to do is download it, install it, type in the command, and it's good to go. In Security Center, I have to go through a lot of work to create a policy that's very basic."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have the enterprise-level license and we renew it annually because it is worth the cost."
"Licensing and costs are straightforward, as they have a baseline of 100 workloads within one license and no additional charges."
"The licensing and costs are straightforward, as they have a baseline of 100 workloads (number of instances) within one license with no additional nor hidden charges. If you want to have 200 workloads under Dome9, then you need to take out two licenses for that. Also, it does not have any impact on cloud billing, as data is shared using the API call. This is well within the limit of free API calls provided by the cloud provider."
"The licensing part still needs some work. The issue that I have is that we do not use all the services in the cloud, but sometimes, CloudGuard identifies them as an asset."
"From a pricing perspective, they are pretty expensive."
"I suggest that you pay attention to the product pricing because while there are no tricks, and the licensing model is transparent, the final numbers may surprise you."
"​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. ​"
"Everything in this field is very expensive."
"The pricing depends upon the number of IPs."
"The price can start at €10,000 ($13,000 USD) for between 500 and 1,000 assets, and the price can climb into the millions as more assets are added."
"I rate the solution's price as seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The tool is quite expensive."
"We pay around 60,000 on a yearly basis."
"This solution's price is quite high."
"Tenable.sc is more expensive than its competitors."
"My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs. The pricing of the solution falls in the mid-range level, so it is not too expensive"
"We're able to save because we don't have to employ more staff members to help wit ht he scheduling of the scans, running the reports or sending them out to the systems owners. That alone is a big ROI for us."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
University
5%
Educational Organization
22%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Tenable SC?
The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tenable SC?
The product is somewhat pricey, reflecting its valuable features and status as a high-quality solution in the vulnerability management market.
What needs improvement with Tenable SC?
While Tenable Security Center is highly effective, there is always room for continuous improvements. The reports and plugins for reports and scans could benefit from enhancements. Overall, it is a ...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management, Dome9, Check Point CloudGuard Workload Protection, Check Point CloudGuard Intelligence
Tenable.sc, Tenable Unified Security, Tenable SecurityCenter
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Symantec, Citrix, Car and Driver, Virgin, Cloud Technology Partners
IBM, Sempra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, Adidas, Union Pacific
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. Tenable Security Center and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.