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

Opinnate vs Tufin Orchestration Suite comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 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

Opinnate
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
13th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tufin Orchestration Suite
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
183
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Opinnate is 0.7%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tufin Orchestration Suite is 22.0%, up from 20.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

Fulya ALGÜL - PeerSpot reviewer
Good support, nice interface, and simple to upgrade
PDF format is not available for Alert Composer. There are file attachment or body content output options. The other issue is that the range object can be displayed in the rule viewer section. If we know the range object, we provide imaging, but if we do not know the range object, there is no imaging. It also allows adding range object rules when performing server cloning. In general, however, we have made successful progress since the POC process.
MithatBulut - PeerSpot reviewer
New employees can quickly grasp the various IPs, devices, and the network's logical and physical
Tufin is primarily used to orchestrate and manage network traffic and firewall devices. It is specifically useful for implementing firewall policies and handling requests from clients that require policy updates or changes Tufin simplifies understanding network topology. New employees can quickly…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Version upgrades can be done quickly."
"The platform is easy to deploy and maintain."
"I like the policy topology map, which allows us to visualize the picture of the security policy of the whole organization."
"Its ability to detect changes within our firewall."
"They have very good responses regarding integration and internalization with open tickets."
"Tufin has improved my organization with its configuration management. It has tremendously improved the operation's success and has made life easier."
"The clarity around the auditing provides the most value for us."
"It is a great solution. If you have all the devices and firewalls in place, the amount of details that you get along with the network topology is very good."
"The product streamlines our change management process."
"Valuable features include a central pane of management for all the firewalls and the ability to do queries on the rules and understand in which files the rules are configured."
 

Cons

"PDF format is not available for Alert Composer."
"The product's web page view is very basic. They could add new features to it."
"The network part of the solution could be improved. It's too hard because of the Tufin licensing model for the routing devices."
"While Tufin is suitable for small businesses, issues can arise in larger enterprises, particularly concerning policy-based forwarding and NAT traffic."
"I would like to see better report integration in this solution."
"I would really like to see a new UI for SecureChange. SecureTrack 2.0 has quite an improvement in the UI and it flows more smoothly. The current SecureTrack and SecureChange are a little blocky, and sometimes loading a tab or a page is required to refresh information. Whereas in SecureTrack 2.0, they're starting to improve on that."
"For me, there are two things that can make Tufin a bit better... [It needs] a better focus on automation - automating a lot of the processes; and automating rule re-certification, or at least finding a way to simplify it."
"It would be great to add a link to Visio to create shapes directly from Tufin, as it has the configuration."
"I would like to see API access into every aspect of Tufin."
"The pricing should be reviewed, as it is a little too high."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Opinnate is inexpensive than other products."
"We have seen ROI in operational aspects, in terms of how long it takes to resolve incidences which arise."
"It's not that expensive, except for Security Groups. For us, just the Security Groups were about half of the total price. The total was about €500,000 a year, of which €200,000 was for Security Groups."
"The licensing costs are around $250,000 to $300,000."
"Tuffin is expensive, and we have to explain to our customers the benefit for them to purchase. If we explain the benefits in the correct way they do not mind the price. We typically do costing for the customer for three to five years. We make the general total cost of ownership at the beginning of a project for our customers."
"There are ways to deploy the license to different types of firewall. However, if we decide to change the physical brand of the firewall, we need to go back to Tufin and modify the licensing. This is a hassle."
"This solution helped us to reduce the time it takes to make changes. We used to spend up to an hour to do a change, and now, it's around five minutes."
"The solution has helped reduce the time it takes us to make changes. It helps make overall integrated changes immediately. It allows us to cut down at least a few hours in the week in regards to changes and monitoring."
"There is a permanent license for devices, but it's not relative to a device itself. Once you purchase 10 licenses for virtual appliances or virtual context, you can put them into different virtual firewalls, but you can reuse these licenses for other devices if you don't need them for the old ones."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Retailer
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Opinnate?
Version upgrades can be done quickly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Opinnate?
Opinnate is inexpensive than other products. They offer yearly licenses.
What needs improvement with Opinnate?
PDF format is not available for Alert Composer. There are file attachment or body content output options. The other issue is that the range object can be displayed in the rule viewer section. If we...
What do you like most about Tufin SecureCloud?
The most valuable feature of Tufin is security auditing. We are able to check the rules and compliance of the company, for example, what is allowed or not. We are able to check the rules over diffe...
What needs improvement with Tufin SecureCloud?
The design needs improvement, particularly in recognizing target devices and target files. Additionally, there's a need for an improved network map.
What is your primary use case for Tufin SecureCloud?
My primary use case involves applying firewall policies faster from a central point. Additionally, I would like to use it to generate reports, but this hasn't occurred yet.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Tufin SecureCloud
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Doguş Teknoloji Bileşim A.S Tubitak Kamu SM Sompo Sigorta İsnet Yıldız Holding Arap Türk Bank ...
3M, AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, BNP Parabas, ConocoPhillips, Deutsche Bank, GE, IBM, Pfizer, United States Postal Service 
Find out what your peers are saying about Opinnate vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.