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

RedSeal vs Tufin Orchestration Suite comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

Sentiment score
8.8
RedSeal's customer service is praised for responsiveness and dedication, though experiences vary between initial and higher-tier support.
No sentiment score available
Tufin's support is responsive and knowledgeable, though costs and variability in issue resolution quality warrant improvement.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
5.1
RedSeal users seek better automation, interface, compatibility, reporting, integration, and visual appeal, with fewer inaccuracies and dependency issues.
Sentiment score
5.6
Users seek improved firewall configuration, visibility, vendor integration, on-premises support, cloud integration, GUI, automation, IPV6 compliance, and cost reduction.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
RedSeal effectively meets scalability demands, aiding supply chain improvements and earning ratings between seven and eight for adaptability.
Sentiment score
6.4
Tufin Orchestration Suite excels in scalability, easily handling complex environments and centralizing control for organizations of all sizes.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
RedSeal is stable with no performance issues, but plug-in malfunctions can affect configuration, earning a 7-8 rating.
Sentiment score
8.0
Tufin Orchestration Suite is stable, reliable, and rarely crashes, with occasional issues usually due to external factors like firewall upgrades.
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
RedSeal enhances network resilience with mapping, risk management, compliance, and incident response tools for dispersed network visibility.
No sentiment score available
Tufin Orchestration Suite offers compliance checks, monitoring, alerts, easy setup, firewall integration, traffic visualization, automation, and security management.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
6.0
Enterprise buyers should discuss Tufin Orchestration Suite's pricing flexibility, as costs vary and can be perceived as expensive or competitive.
 

Categories and Ranking

RedSeal
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (26th)
Tufin Orchestration Suite
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
181
Ranking in other categories
Firewall Security Management (2nd), Container Security (28th)
 

Featured Reviews

Sajid Mukhtar - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides a graphical overview of our network and is easy to deploy, but needs a user-friendly interface and a feature for compliance audit policy
Sometimes, it required us to refresh the configuration. When we integrated any of the configurations into the device, sometimes, it could not detect the exact picture of that device. So, we had to reset the device to see that if it was giving true-positive results or false-positive results. In some cases, we were not able to get true-positive results. There was some kind of bug in that version. Its interface is not user-friendly and needs to be improved. It takes time to understand the interface and various options. Skybox has quite a user-friendly interface. They could provide a feature for compliance audit policy if it is already not there. A compliance audit policy ensures that all configurations are based on the best practices standards, such as CIS benchmarks standard or other similar standards. It provides visibility about whether your device configuration is based on best practices or not. Usually, such a feature is provided by other solutions such as Meteor or Tenable Nessus.
Amroy Lumban Gaol - PeerSpot reviewer
A flexible, very secure solution that works well in Layer 2 environments
Integration for Layer 2 devices could be improved because it requires manual scripting. Other layers are very simple to integrate. It would be a benefit to have a form field for firewall names, user names, and passwords which then auto integrate. Licensing options are confusing and require additional fees for high availability. Competitors include high availability with their standard licenses.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
22%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Retailer
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Tufin?
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tufin?
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 ...
What needs improvement with Tufin?
The reporting function could improve in Tufin. For our clients with companies that have strong compliance, reporting privacy data is mostly a problem. In the IT department, private data needs a fun...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Tufin SecureCloud
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

United States Postal Service, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Interval International
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 Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: November 2024.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.