It seems to scale very well. We have had the same servers in for four years now, and everything's keeping up. We haven't had any issues yet, and we are probably monitoring around 400 firewalls today.

We have not yet scaled beyond our initial deployment that included hundreds of firewalls. The solution handles our complex environment with no issues. 

I am not sure about the scalability. The product that we have deployed for our main process gets bogged down in terms of its response. Maybe, we need to deploy a slightly smaller box. Eventually, we need to discuss this with Tufin is to see if we can move over to some sort of VM environment where we can add more processing power to it. 

We have a global implementation.

With the scalability, you have to use different components: the reporting server and distribution server. When we implemented it earlier, we didn't design it properly, which I feel is our issue. Once we design it properly, the way that we are implementing it now, I feel the scalability should be there.

We own nearly two million dollars worth of equipment. It is scalable.

We haven't pushed this product to the point where we have to scale out.

We have definitely added gear, so it is scalable. We've added two more distribution servers and probably seven or eight more collectors. It is definitely scalable.

So far, scalability has been doing well. 

This solution is not entirely scalable, although we have a very small footprint, so we don't really need it to be. For our use case, it's okay. I think that the distributed architecture, which we don't use, would allow it to be a lot more scalable, but I haven't had any experience with that.

The solution is scalable. You can onboard a lot of devices from different vendors. It only depends on the hardware resourcing and licensing. You have to purchase enough licenses.

We use Tufin a lot. I'm an administrator of the application, and we have people who open requests in Tufin. We use an internal ticket system to record these requests. We don't have an integration with an ITSM system yet, but we plan to do so with ServiceNow in the future. Until then, users will have to use Tufin to open their own requests. I've had two experiences with technical support and I find them to be too slow. I can't really say if they are good or not, as it seems to depend on the individual company and the engineers they employ.

The scalability seems good. It is overwhelming to think about how to define a USP potentially for the amount of networks that we have for shop floor firewalls. However, in terms of scalability, it seems like once the information is in there, it can operate well and help speed up change requests.

We've added more servers to process the load, and it's definitely helped speed up the system.

At this time, we manage almost five hundred firewalls.

We can add as many firewalls as we need. It's just a matter of purchasing the licenses. It has good scalability.

We can add as many firewalls as we need to, as long as we purchase the licenses, so it has good scalability.

It seems to be really scalable once you have all of the modules working together. We have a broad array of subgroups that we're working on compliance with, from really small to really large, and it works well with all of them.

It has very good growth. The scalability is very nice. We're doing a distributed environment right now. So, it has met our needs, which is nice.

The scalability is good, because you can have a central server, distributed server, and remote collectors. You can have remote land sites or branch offices. You can have the collectors collect the data for you. You don't have to rely on just one server.

It’s holding up real good with scalability and stability. We have not run out of power on the box. They have been here on site and see what we are doing and how we are doing it. We are telling them what we need and they are doing it. They are pushing the envelope in their development side to try and meet our demands.

It has been scalable so far. We don't have any issues.

On the administration side, 15 people are working with it.

As for scalability, we're finding that out right now. We're building out two new Remote Collectors for our global deployment of an additional 150 to 180 firewalls, plus additional Layer 3 appliances. We're working through that right now. Hopefully, it will be a smooth transition but I can't say for sure because we haven't actually implemented it yet.

We have some work to do with scaling the product, so I don't yet know about the scalability.

This solution is extremely scalable. I've seen customers with multiple hundreds of firewalls and there are no issues. The specs that they post on their Knowledge Base are pretty accurate as far as performance goes.

The SecureTrack R15-3 central-database shows significant performance strain, handling policy revisions, and rule/object usage updates from our 1600+ base of firewall devices. However, it continues to function, albeit slowly, day-in and day-out.

The scalability is amazing. We have it in two data centers. We have full redundancy with it. I have no qualms about its scalability, whatsoever.

I can't speak to the scalability. I'm not sure if it will scale. 

We only have eight people using the product right now. They are just engineers. 

We haven't had any issues with scalability yet. We can scale as much as we need to.

This solution is extremely scalable, globally across thousands of firewalls, switches, and proxy devices. We look for scalability in a product. We have a small portfolio of solution providers, Tufin being one of them, and we choose them based on their scalability. There are other factors, but scalability is critical for us.

I'm very impressed with the scalability. Previously, we used appliances sitting on our network. This time, we went with a VM and our technical rep said we could put up to 80 licenses on it. That's way more scalability that I anticipated.

No issues.

We didn't have to expand the solution, but management has had thoughts about expanding the solution for other environments, for other clients, and for the customers.

The scalability is good.

The scalability seems good. We have a distributed system right now, and it seems like it can scale up or scale out, as needed.

We had no issues with scalability.

We are a big company and our network is complex. We have a lot of servers and we have about 700-plus branches connecting to HQ. HQ is our main site to go with the ISP. But we only implemented Tufin at our HQ and two of our main branches.

There were only four users on my team.

Tufin is more suitable for enterprise companies. The benefits of the solution come when you have 10 to 50 gateways, and you have to control all the rule sets and do a revision over this installation. This is when you see the benefit of a central auditing tool, such as Tufin.

I rate the scalability of Tufin a seven out of ten.

The scalability of Tufin is good.

We have approximately 20 people using Tufin in my company. We have many teams using the solution, such as security, operational network, and network architecture.

We do not have plans to increase the usage of this solution.

We have a small team working with Tufin. That said, even though the team is not a big team, we have a lot for it to do. Tufin now is our policy manager for the private cloud. It's the main policy manager. We also use Skybox for the legacy part.

We have done PR strategies and added Tufin appliances. It is super easy to just back up and restore to a new one. You can get a new appliance up and running in 20 minutes.

At this moment, it is not necessary to expand the solution.

It seems pretty scalable. From what I have seen in the training, you can use it on multiple firewalls. It seems like a solution which was built for very large enterprise level networks.

We have not tested scalability because we're set at where we are right now, although that is not to say that we won't be expanding in the future.

In terms of scalability, the only issue is the licensing part. You have to have the correct license to go to a larger installment.

We haven't run out of room with the product yet. It's very scalable. We fly to 115 different locations,we have 3 different data centers, and we monitor all our network devices, firewalls and routers through Tufin.

The scalability of this solution is ok.

Our current machine handles all firewalls for one of our business units. We're at a point where we've ordered a larger one to handle 200 firewalls. We'll take the smaller one to have an additional collector. The scalability is very good.

With regards to scalability, we are not only using this product for firewall rule management, but also for other manual workflows that we used to have but are now incorporated into Tufin to allow us to automate and actually have visibility into these manual processes. It’s now online instead of being paper copy. We haven’t had an issue with scalability and it’s been able to keep up with this transition.

We are big, but I don't really know about scalability issues. I don't work on Tufin. I just utilize it. We just added a few more servers. In the last few weeks, the reports were coming pretty fast from busy firewalls.

It scales okay. They can add some scalability to it, yes, they can definitely add scalability to it.

The scalability is pretty good. Right now, our solution is a little bit more contained, given our business requirements. But we don't see scalability as a roadblock if we do have to expand it out or scale out. No complaints there.

The solution is scalable if we have to add more devices, more distinct resources, or also high availability. That's part of the solution. It's not like after-thought, it's there.

It is scalable. We manage about 150 firewalls. There are no issues at all.

We've reached the capacity of the current system and we're looking to upgrade. We went from about 100 firewalls in Tufin to almost 300. We've tripled the demand on the same appliance, but we intentionally bought a large appliance so we could grow into it.

The solution is scalable.

It's a scalable product. We have about 50 gateways, and Tufin collects data from all of them. We also have a management server, and we've integrated two important classes of databases. We're only using three instances, and we're not having any issues.

I find the product to be easy to scale. Adding new firewalls is pretty straightforward and it handles the process well. If a company needs to expand and add more firewalls it shouldn't be a problem at all.

I would say six or seven people are using it and they're network operation people who have to deal with day-to-day firewall management, putting in new firewall rules, et cetera.

This solution is highly scalable.

It seems very scalable.

We have 40 consultants and too many people.

Scalability is to be determined at this point for us. Right now, we have five or six isolated instances, and we're going to collapse those down to a single front-end. Then, we'll scale up to how many devices that we're monitoring. At this point, we haven't had any issues with scalability, but we haven't really pushed the appliances too hard yet. 

Making sure that you are designing or coming up with a solution and architecture which is scalable and as holistic as possible. We had some discussions yesterday with some other customers, and having the complete visibility of your entire environment rather than just a subset like we do today at our company will make or break your functionality of the product. Being as all inclusive as possible is probably critical, especially if you're looking at things like SecureChange.

I think that the way it is architected, currently, is limited in its scalability. In the future, it should be more scalable.

Scalability is hard for me to say based on what we have deployed so far. We do have issues, but it's hard for me to say whether they are because of the hardware, or are an issue of scale.

Our deployment is quite small, so I cannot speak to the scalability yet.

We don't have that big of an environment. We added some 20 pairs of firewalls and another 20 or 30 routers, and one F5. I don't think we have scaled Tufin sufficiently to put it under some stress. Our DC is pretty small, we don't have many devices.

We will be using the appliance based product, which cannot be scaled as much. It is a limitation in the hardware.

It is not very good. It scales but not eloquently. It is complex and not easy for our organization to stay on top of managing it.

We have, I think, over a thousand devices right now, and we haven’t had any scalability issues.

Well, we did, and then we upgraded the hardware. Not a big deal at that point.

Upgrading the hardware resolved the issues because the amount of logs that we generate is pretty insane. Having that one little box handle the entire enterprise full of logs was not very efficient.

We didn't have as much advanced management at that time. Over time, we've merged with other areas of our business and inherited many more advances, bobbles, with that, I think that's where we came across the problem that we wanted so many things active and realized that we did actually need to upscale the deployment.

We originally purchased it mainly for Check Point and then ended up purchasing Cisco ASA and Palo Alto licenses, so we ended up with more stuff than we originally purchased it for. Hence the need to upgrade for VMware and memory.

We have not been using it for a long time. So far, it is scalable for us. We have more or less ten people.

The scalability of the product is excellent. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so relatively easily.

In our case, while I don't have an exact user count, I can say that there were quite a lot of people on the product.

We're talking about shifting potentially away from Tufin, however, if we had kept it would have been used extensively.

We have a very big environment. The scalability works well.

Scalability is something the customer will be exploring in the next phase.

I think that the major limitation is its ability to integrate into more products. With the common products, the older products, it integrates very well. But with the newer products, like I said, F5 for example, they do have some issues. I'm not too sure about other firewall products and other DDoS products that could be in the network.

For now, the customer is trying to integrate the product into the rest of the group. That's currently being studied by some of their overseas counterparts to see if it's suitable. The plan is that the customer intends to proliferate this across the entire network, but that step will take place over five years' time.

The scalability is pretty good. All we have to do is just add another device and buy another license. It seems pretty straightforward.

We're in the process of scaling it. We started off small, and now, we're enlarging it to cover more of the enterprise. The scalability is good.

I don't know how many devices we have in there but there hasn't been a problem. We have several business units with multiple devices across each business unit. I don't believe that I've come across a problem getting a large amount of devices in.

We have about 22,000 rules and 120 devices that we're monitoring. We haven't had any scalability problems.

Yes. Originally we had 360 rules, but because of the growth of our environment and our move, it's up to 1100 rules. There are no performance issues.

It's not actually user intensive, so it does not hamper our power in any way.

Honestly, I don't have too many devices running with Tufin, so we don't really have a need to scale much. But I do think that it needs improvement in the area of scalability.

I've used about 200+ devices. That was all the environment was, so I definitely know, talking to other customers who have thousands of devices, so it scales very well.

Scalability is very good. We are planning to add more entities this year. 

It has already pulled in all our Layer 3 switches and routers across the company.

I don't know if I can expand on the cloud yet.

We have a lot of devices on it now.

The scalability is according to performance that we are experience. Therefore, we are getting more devices on this tool, so it has been very helpful for us.

This is one of the things that we do like about the solution, which is why we went with it.

We probably have more than 2,000 rules for each and every policy. It depends, 1,000 rules, 2,000 rules, somewhere in between. We have a pretty massive rule base, and it's giving good reports.

We've been working with it for a long time and it's been good from that perspective. Again, we have a lot of customers. It's been really scalable. We've had some customers that are on a hundred gateways on it.

Right now, with what we're using it for, it has been scalable. We haven't had an issue with scalability at all. It's been able to keep up.

It scaled for our needs.

The solution is scalable. Currently, approximately 60% of our organization uses it.

To this point, we have only used the basic functionality. We have several teams working with the tools.

We have not had any issues with scalability. When we needed more power, we just added a new server, and that was straightforward. So, it is pretty scalable. 

I can't say too much about scalability, simply because it was not scalable for our environment because we are using a splintered specialized version just for our company. The Tufin apliance just doesn't play well with that specialized version. But for the things that we do have that are general release, it's awesome. It takes a little bit of a fiddling around but again, we're on an older version. It works flawlessly.

The scalability is bad.

The distributed architecture capabilities allows this solution to scale to anybody’s needs.

We are big, but we are only using a fraction of what Tufin is capable right now. I'm hoping that we can explore a lot more and then try to utilize more on Tufin because my big way to look at Tufin is this ability to gather all that data. If Tufin doesn't have that footprint, you won't get that data. So right now, I'm working on that.

It has scaled well for us. We probably have about a couple hundred firewalls feeding it information including rule usage and so on.

We don't have this issue because we only have four firewalls. It has scaled for our needs.

No issue specifically, but for large networks several appliances are required to have a distributed architecture. Also, for SecureChange it's necessary to have a separate instance so the topology calculation has no impact on user interfaces.

We have not run into limitations around scalability. Depending on the devices, it is better to have a sizing discussion with the sales engineer.

The scalability is fine but when it comes to web services, in my experience, Tomcat has always gone down; after a certain amount of load it breaks down and we have to get things restored again. The scalability is perfectly fine but, performance-wise, they have to work on the platform or the base of Tufin to make it more robust. In a bad situation, if a lot of guys are logging in, it breaks down.

We are a big company and I can say that we are not using the product in its fullest capacity. We have a different type of policy because we are using different vendors and different technologies, and while we have some issues with the juniper devices, it has absolutely been scalable.

For what we do we haven't seen any performance issues so far.

We haven't had any issues with scalability.

It is scalable in the sense that we use a lot of policies and we haven't run into any limits yet.

We've scaled it to hundreds of firewalls. We haven't had a scalability issue. 

It's pretty scalable. That's a good thing. 

We haven't had any trouble scaling it. We have about 100 policies.
There haven’t been any issues with speed, as far as I can tell.

We have a relatively small environment. We've got 30 firewalls, basically 15 clusters that Tufin monitors, and our policy rule base isn’t huge. We moved over to VMware and haven't had any issues with caring for the product.

It scales because you can put multiple devices in multiple networks. We've got some things where the firewalls aren't routable back to the central, so we can put these proxy-serve type things in, so it's very scalable. You can have as many of them as you want.

It scales from small network segments up to very, very big companies with thousands of firewalls.

We have a number of firewalls with no concerns about scalability.

We've had no issues with scalability.

It is extremely scalable. It really addresses the scale of a company's firewall footprint.

The scalability is very good. Hopefully, this year we are planning to add more entities with our custom platform. The more controller options would be something which will provide more flexibility.

We've never really had the opportunity to check the scalability. Our company's growth at the moment is stagnant and normal.

It was very scalable and very customizable for what we needed it for. We had about 4,500 users on our network, and then we had six firewalls. It came in handy with that.

I think we're ready for an upgrade, it's getting kind of slow. They did tell us that you can break up the database in the actual server application into two separate units. That's supposed to make it a lot faster. I think we'll probably do that in the next upgrade.

We have seen some slowness, but I think it's because we're on some aging hardware. We're quite larger than a lot of people that probably use it too. It has been scalable for our size so far.

I think it's scalable for what we have today. If we were to move to Tufin Orchestration Suite, we would probably look at putting more distributive Tufin appliances out in different places because we are worldwide and have major data centers throughout the world. We would probably try to keep things localized.

We don't have firewalls all over the world, just a part of it. For the number of firewalls we have, Tufin works fine.

The solution is scalable.

It's a scalable product. I have dealt with companies that are pretty sizeable, and it seems to handle it.

As long as we keep up with the revisions, it's been very scalable. We just did another upgrade because we considered it a little slow. We were running an old version. Once we upgraded, it's been rock-solid. It's always been there, it's always been good.

I think it's been solid. It's always been there for us.

It's been able to scale for our needs. What we have is OK.

It's scaleable for our needs. We've had no issues with scalability.

We did have an issue with load on the original machine but that was actually our fault. We've put it onto new servers now and haven't had a problem.

I don't know about the scalability, as I never got it out a very small VM.

We are large, but we have no problem with scalability. We have less than ten firewalls and it handles the traffic well.

We've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

10/10 They maintain good sessions in providing support

With scalability, we are going to run into some issues. We have been talking about converting over to actual hardware as opposed to virtual. Therefore, I don't think we are scalable at this time, especially with the updates coming. I'm told that they're going to need a lot more horsepower to push them. 

As far as scalability, it is great for adding network objects and so on.

We're pretty small scale, so I don't know how much larger it would go. We're about a 4,000 device network.

I don't have a huge environment, but it doesn't seem to require a lot of horsepower. We're running it as a virtual machine, and that's working fine.

Our Austrain customers are not big, so scalability from my point of view is not an issue. At the moment, we haven't come across any issues with scalability, so I'd say it's perfect in that regard.

It has been scalable for our needs.

The way we deployed it is sufficient for what we're using it for. We haven't really had to scale it.

We have 2000 employees, and it's been able to scale to meet our needs.

It scales very easily. I'm in a market where a 5000-user company is a large company, so there's definitely no problem there, but I easily see that the solution can scale far larger than that.

It has very good scalability.

The scalability has been great, and we've implemented it on 25 devices now.

This solution is scalable.

It's been able to scale for our needs. We only need to drag files for our subsidiaries into our devices, and currently we have about forty or fifty devices.

For us, it's a new product so we don't know about scalability right now. We may need to scale it in the next year or two.

Tufin is definitely scalable.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

Scalability is good.

We’re a small team and we manage five clusters, so it’s not too bad.

We don't have outages with Tufin and stability has never been an issue.

It struggles a little bit with our internal system.

It is very scalable.

We have 600 objects in it and it's able to work well for all of them.

The scalability wasn’t good in the past, but now as they've grown as a company, they've changed the platform so that it can scale for its users.

The scalability is the best.