RedSeal vs Tufin Orchestration Suite comparison

"This is the only solution in the world that gives you a digital resilience score."

"RedSeal integrates the network and gives us a visual or graphical overview of our network. If an organization is geographically dispersed, for instance, with one office in Canada and one office in the Philippines, the whole network, including all devices, is integrated into RedSeal, and you can see from where the traffic is going in and out."

"The most valuable features are network mapping and configuration."

"RedSeal has different modules, such as the Analyzer module, which can be leveraged."

"This solution has helped us to meet our compliance mandates. We implemented the Unified Security Policy (USP). This helped enforce what compliance requirements that we had. We have mitigated and remediated issues that have been brought forth due to that USP showing us issues."

"We've scaled it to hundreds of firewalls."

"We are able to discover firewall rules that are too broad and widen the security footprint."

"The filtering of lots of criteria is very valuable."

"The solution is good, and no clients complained about it."

"It provides very good reports. It can easily integrate with multiple firewalls, such as Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, and Checkpoint. We can push a policy from Tufin to a firewall, which is a very good feature. We can monitor all access rules and the operating system of a firewall."

"We can get reports with Tufin at anytime. We can have automated reports, even with security and compliance."

"Being able to customize your own clarity to that aspect of change management."

"One of the areas of concern is the GUI. It is important to our customers that the GUI looks beautiful. It's a Java Client, so you have a Java dependency."

"The dashboard should be improved to make correlating data easier to do."

"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."

"There is room for improvement in integrating the OT security part and the private 5G security part in RedSeal."

"This solution would benefit from better reporting functionality with graphing so that reports can be presented to management."

"Its price is reasonable, but it could be lower. It could have a more effective approach for creating and changing rules. It could provide advice or suggestions for a better understanding of rules and changing the rules. There should be suggestions for the rules that need to be changed to make them less risky."

"There was some complexity during the initial setup"

"Tufin has come a long way when it comes to visibility. What we would like to see is a little bit more on the discovery level, network discovery, which Tufin does not have today."

"It needs better reporting with more graphics and more pie charts, so management can understand details. The reports that are done now are full of data and management would like to have an image to help understand, right away, what the reports are saying."

"We would like to see more in terms of integration with other application types within the context, such as next-generation firewalls or next-generation threat devices that are out there."

"The firewall management is complex for beginners."

"The change workflow process is flexible and customizable to some extent, but there is room for improvement. In some cases, we've found it difficult to get the exact thing which we were looking for. Then, we end up having to go and do the thing manually."

"The pricing is based on the number of endpoints and devices, and we have seen it range from mid-five figures to low six figures."

"Our licensing costs are pretty low. We were grandfathered in, so we are at about $35,000 per year."

"It is expensive, but as compared to other players, it's more or less okay. Their pricing is not very transparent. This is my biggest point regarding Tufin. I've never seen a price list or something like that. It's always individual, and in many cases, it's very confusing to know what is the base and what is the price."

"The seller of Tufin, when I wanted the solution, was very flexible because the cost on the lease was very high in Latin America. So, he was able to reduce the cost."

"We've seen a decrease of about 50 percent in the overall time it takes to complete a firewall change."

"The licensing costs are around $250,000 to $300,000."

"The price of Tufin could be lower."

"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."

"Our evaluation showed that Tufin's features were on par with AlgoSec, but Tufin was the better financial choice."