<p>Orca Security and Wiz are significant competitors in the cloud security space. Orca Security has an edge with its strong container security and intuitive cloud visibility, while Wiz stands out in contextual risk management with its Security Graph.</p><p><strong>Features:</strong> Orca Security offers intuitive cloud visibility using SideScanning, which provides agentless risk detection and effective vulnerability ranking. It excels in containers, especially Kubernetes and Docker, and integrates well with CI/CD pipelines. Wiz focuses on contextual risk management via its Security Graph, rapid threat detection, and provides a robust security perspective without requiring agents. It combines threat intelligence with security posture management for efficient risk prioritization.</p><p><strong>Room for Improvement:</strong> Orca Security could improve by expanding automatic remediation options and better integration with third-party systems, along with increased transparency in feature updates. Wiz would benefit from enhanced reporting features to make them more executive-friendly, improved infrastructure integration, and more frequent scanning options. User education regarding ongoing developments could be beneficial for both.</p><p><strong>Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:</strong> Orca Security is known for its seamless integration and robust cloud-based support, with users appreciating its real-time communication and quick resolutions. Wiz, while similarly easy to deploy in cloud environments, also supports on-premises setups, and its simplicity and low-touch installation are praised. Both offer solid customer support though there are user reports suggesting areas for longer response time improvements.</p><p><strong>Pricing and ROI:</strong> Orca Security's pricing aligns with high-tier solutions, justified by its comprehensive features leading to reduced overhead and fast time-to-value. Its flexible strategy caters to diverse organizational needs. Wiz is priced at a premium, surpassing some competitors but offers strong ROI through its agentless approach and threat intelligence capabilities. Both solutions significantly enhance security posture and visibility despite cost considerations being crucial.</p>

<p>Orca Security and Upwind compete in the cloud security market. Users favor Upwind for its impressive feature set, leading to an advantage over Orca, despite the cost.</p><p><strong>Features:</strong> Orca Security's agentless architecture allows seamless integration and comprehensive visibility, extensive asset coverage, and consistent vulnerability assessments. Upwind provides robust threat detection, advanced risk prioritization, and detailed threat intelligence.</p><p><strong>Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:</strong> Orca Security offers a straightforward deployment model that minimizes installation time, with excellent technical support. Upwind's deployment is more detailed but is supported by extensive documentation and thorough customer service.</p><p><strong>Pricing and ROI:</strong> Orca Security is cost-effective with lower initial setup costs, providing a quicker ROI. Upwind's higher pricing is offset by its comprehensive features, potentially offering significant long-term value.</p>

Orca Security excels with comprehensive threat detection and vulnerability management, making it ideal for enterprises seeking extensive features. In comparison, Upwind's efficient data protection and simplified deployment appeals to budget-conscious firms valuing cost-effectiveness and robust support.

Orca Security offers comprehensive visibility without agents and prioritizes vulnerabilities, saving costs with quick value realization. In comparison, Wiz excels in contextual risk evaluation and highlights toxic combinations, providing clear cloud visibility for users who prioritize security despite potential cost increases.

Orca Security typically involves a higher setup cost, whereas Upwind offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. Both solutions present distinct value propositions, but Upwind's lower entry price could appeal to cost-conscious organizations.

<p>Wiz and Upwind are competitive tech products, each drawing attention for their strengths. Wiz generally leads in pricing and support, while Upwind's robust feature offerings are noteworthy.</p><p><strong>Features:</strong> Wiz provides streamlined data integration, security analytics, and automation features, focusing on simplifying operations. Upwind offers comprehensive reporting tools, risk management, and customizable dashboards, allowing extensive control with a focus on detailed insights.</p><p><strong>Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:</strong> Wiz's rapid deployment emphasizes efficient cloud-based solutions, supported by responsive customer service. Upwind, although offering thorough documentation and guidance, requires more intricate deployment, with detailed support materials that ensure clarity during challenging integrations.</p><p><strong>Pricing and ROI:</strong> Wiz presents competitive pricing with a lower initial setup cost, appealing to budget-conscious organizations with substantial ROI. Upwind, while necessitating a higher initial investment, offers significant ROI for those valuing its advanced features, making its cost justifiable for organizations seeking comprehensive capabilities.</p>

Orca Security's setup cost is higher, offering a comprehensive installation, while Wiz presents a more affordable option with quicker deployment.

Wiz provides value with its pricing and strong customer support. In comparison, Upwind excels with its advanced features and flexibility, making it ideal for tech-heavy environments despite higher costs. Wiz suits budget-conscious buyers, while Upwind offers extensive capabilities for large companies.

Wiz offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, while Upwind presents a complex setup with higher initial expenses. This highlights the affordability and simplicity of Wiz compared to the more intricate and costly setup associated with Upwind.

<p>Gem Security and Stream.Security compete in the cybersecurity space. Stream.Security holds an advantage due to its robust features.</p><p><strong>Features:</strong> Gem Security provides advanced monitoring capabilities, customizable alerts, and streamlined security management. Stream.Security offers comprehensive threat detection, integrated incident response tools, and an extensive security framework.</p><p><strong>Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:</strong> Stream.Security provides cloud-based deployment and seamless integration with responsive customer service. Gem Security has a hybrid deployment model with some integration challenges but offers dedicated support teams available around the clock.</p><p><strong>Pricing and ROI:</strong> Gem Security is recognized for its lower setup costs and good ROI for cost-sensitive businesses. Stream.Security, despite a higher initial investment, provides better long-term ROI due to its comprehensive features and security performance.</p>

Gem Security appeals to budget-conscious businesses with its easy integration and responsive support. In comparison, Stream.Security, with its advanced analytics and extensive feature set, targets enterprises needing robust security layers despite a higher initial investment.

Gem Security has a higher setup cost compared to Stream.Security, making Stream.Security a more cost-effective choice for initial investment.

<p>Upwind and Stream.Security are competing products in the cybersecurity domain, each offering unique advantages. While Stream.Security is often viewed as a superior solution due to its comprehensive features and robustness, Upwind is favored for its competitive pricing and strong customer support.</p><p><strong> Features:</strong> Upwind is recognized for real-time threat monitoring, intuitive configuration capabilities, and adaptability. Stream.Security offers advanced threat detection, customizable security protocols, and superior features that appeal to enterprises with complex security needs.</p><p><strong> Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:</strong> Upwind provides a straightforward deployment process with responsive customer service, making onboarding simple. Stream.Security involves more complex initial setup with extensive deployment controls, supported by thorough documentation and detailed support that attracts businesses requiring advanced flexibility.</p><p><strong> Pricing and ROI:</strong> Upwind presents a cost-effective solution with lower setup costs and a rapid ROI, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. Stream.Security, with higher upfront costs, offers substantial ROI through robust, feature-rich offerings, delivering superior long-term security outcomes valued by organizations prioritizing top-tier cybersecurity features.</p>

Upwind attracts buyers with affordable pricing and quick deployment, ideal for organizations with smaller IT teams. In comparison, Stream.Security provides advanced threat intelligence and customization, appealing to complex environments requiring thorough security strategies and delivering higher long-term ROI despite initial higher costs and setup complexity.

Upwind offers lower setup costs while Stream.Security provides more comprehensive packages, highlighting distinct pricing strategies.

<p>Wiz and Stream.Security compete in the security market, offering robust solutions tailored to distinct customer needs. Wiz has the upper hand in user satisfaction regarding flexibility and support, whereas Stream.Security is preferred for its comprehensive feature set, appealing to advanced users.</p><p><strong>Features:</strong> Wiz is known for intuitive setup, scalability, and continuous monitoring capabilities. Stream.Security offers extensive threat intelligence, advanced incident response tools, and a more in-depth security framework.</p><p><strong>Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:</strong> Wiz provides a streamlined deployment model with responsive customer service, ensuring easy integration into existing systems. Stream.Security, conversely, has a more complex deployment process but offers detailed documentation and dedicated support for complex environments.</p><p><strong>Pricing and ROI:</strong> Wiz is recognized for competitive pricing and high ROI due to its scalable model and cost-effective solutions. Stream.Security involves a higher initial setup cost, but the ROI is considered worthwhile for its advanced security features. The cost-effectiveness of Wiz results in quick returns, while Stream.Security is valued for long-term comprehensive protection despite the higher upfront costs.</p>

Wiz is appealing for its competitive pricing and intuitive deployment experience with strong customer support. In comparison, Stream.Security offers comprehensive threat detection and robust data protection, which may justify its higher cost for organizations prioritizing extensive security capabilities.

Wiz offers a straightforward, budget-friendly setup cost, while Stream.Security has a more premium initial setup fee.

{"quote":"If it were possible to provide these patterns with historical data spanning six months, three months, or two months directly from the console, it would be extremely beneficial.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"8"}

{"quote":"I have noticed a pattern developing in approximately five minutes.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"6"}

{"quote":"If the integration process can happen more swiftly, ideally within minutes and seconds, it could lead to significant improvements.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"7"}

AWS Shield provides DDoS protection, secures websites and infrastructure, crucial for online casinos and companies using EKS.

{"quote":"If all historical data were available, I could consult six months' worth of identified patterns efficiently through AWS without relying on external sources.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"It would allow for easy inquiries and facilitate the retrieval of relevant parts without having to manually check logs or examine movements.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"If it were possible to provide these patterns with historical data spanning six months, three months, or two months directly from the console, it would be extremely beneficial.","score":"8"}

AWS Shield offers excellent support, with proactive account managers ensuring quick incident resolution and reliable communication.

6.5

8.15

Users recommend AWS Shield for AWS dominance, consider hybrid DDoS solutions, and highlight AI and tool integration benefits.

{"quote":"It is quite scalable, and we have not faced any issues with its scalability.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"9"}

8.0

{"quote":"Perhaps the time required to detect anomalies can be reduced. Presently, it takes some time to determine whether a situation is normal or abnormal.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"3"}

8.85

AWS Shield is easy to set up, providing automatic protection with minimal configuration, though late integration may require adjustments.

AWS Shield is difficult to modify, costly, and lacks detailed insights, customization, and quick anomaly detection.

AWS Shield is praised for its seamless scalability, reliability, and performance in diverse cloud environments with automated scaling.

AWS Shield offers seamless integration, real-time DDoS protection, simple deployment, cost-effectiveness, and transparency without affecting performance.

AWS Shield is highly stable, with no reported issues, perfect scores, and praised for reliable notifications and functionality.

{"quote":"They made every effort to assist me in resolving the issues encountered.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"We have communicated with management to resolve some incidents and to understand particular scenarios better.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The customer service was established correctly.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"If the integration process can happen more swiftly, ideally within minutes and seconds, it could lead to significant improvements.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Presently, it takes some time to determine whether a situation is normal or abnormal.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Perhaps the time required to detect anomalies can be reduced.","score":"8"}

AWS Shield offers scalable, cost-effective pricing from $200 to $3000 monthly, praised for affordability despite feature limitations.

{"quote":"It is quite scalable, and we have not faced any issues with its scalability.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"AWS manages the solution promptly, so we do not handle the management ourselves.","score":"8"}

AWS Shield has been utilized by users for durations between two and almost seven years to protect their services.

In our data-focused workload, AWS Shield provides effective endpoint protection. While monitoring is valued, faster anomaly detection would enhance security. It's affordable and meets our needs without considering alternatives, utilizing native systems within the AWS ecosystem.

{"quote":"All our workload is related to learning and analyzing data.","score":6}

{"quote":"We rely heavily on Shield, and I am pleased with the solution it provides.","score":7}

{"quote":"We need to utilize native systems to monitor any normal or abnormal activities within our infrastructure.","score":8}

<p>AWS Shield integrates seamlessly with AWS, offering robust initial setup and effective defense against denial-of-service attacks. It provides a solid mechanism for trend analysis and event triggering, with impressive features in security and real-time attack prevention. Active Directory integration ensures transparency without hindering performance. However, difficult management and high costs, along with architecture issues, demand attention. Logs, reports, and anomaly detection time require improvement for enhanced usability.</p>

AWS Shield's initial setup is straightforward with minimal configuration, often taking only a few minutes to activate. It seamlessly protects external properties upon enabling. However, integrating it into an existing architecture might be challenging, possibly requiring a cloud engineer for maintenance and a part-time architect for oversight if done at scale. Initial deployment is simple, involving enabling rather than installation. Many organizations find it intuitive, quick, and uncomplicated.

AWS Shield users note that pricing is scalable and aligned with AWS spending, often reducing costs with higher consumption. Monthly expenses range from $200 to $300 for some, while others pay $3000, reflecting organizational billing strategies. Users find pricing fair and cost-effective relative to other solutions, with an overall positive assessment of cost, often rating it highly. Budget optimization requires organizational-level purchasing to avoid higher fees from multiple subscriptions.

<p></p>

<p>The management of AWS Shield can be challenging, requiring careful front-end engineering to avoid difficulties in making changes later.</p><p>AWS Shield's architectural and ongoing support requirements need improvement.</p><p>Users experience additional costs for unnecessary AWS Shield features.</p><p>AWS Shield should offer greater flexibility for customizing security policies.</p><p>AWS Shield needs to enhance its logs and reports for better readability.</p>

AWS Shield faces challenges with complex management and costly pricing as features increase. The architecture and ongoing support need enhancements. Users seek more flexibility for security policies and improved traffic insights. Custom reporting and dashboards are lacking. Anomalies take too long to detect, and the tool should integrate faster. Logs and reports need readability improvements. More detailed DDoS alerts and expanded low-level service offerings would benefit users who prefer custom solutions over AWS’s standard options.

Users advise others to carefully architect their environment, considering AWS Shield as an excellent option for organizations with major internet presence on AWS. They emphasize having a unified alerting system and suggest hybrid users consider other options. They recommend advanced versions for DDoS protection and suggest integrating AI for pattern recognition. With a preference for AWS Shield for startups, they highlight relying on existing AWS setups, scoring AWS Shield between seven and ten out of ten.

AWS Shield customer service and support are highly regarded. Users highlight strong technical support, effective communication, and proactive assistance. Their technical account manager plays a crucial role, ensuring smooth alignment and deployment. The AWS team is noted for providing permanent resolutions and extending support beyond immediate issues. Positive feedback from various sources reflects timely response and helpfulness in resolving incidents, earning their service high praise.

Users have engaged with AWS Shield for a range of two to seven years.

Users consider AWS Shield highly reliable, consistently rating its stability between eight and ten out of ten. They report no significant issues with performance over several years of use, acknowledging valuable notifications during events and security triggers. They note that the tool operates smoothly at its baseline, encountering no challenges at that level.

AWS Shield is valued for its integration with AWS, maintenance-free nature, and transparency. Users appreciate its ease of use, deployment, and management. It effectively analyzes trends, triggers events, and stops DDoS attacks in real-time. The security features and real-time attack prevention are crucial. It's easy to configure without degrading performance. Users like the automated defense against denial-of-service threats, seamless integration, and the ability to identify abnormal activities. Its cost-effectiveness is an added benefit.

AWS Shield is primarily utilized for DDoS protection, firewall security, and Layer 7 attack defense. Businesses leverage it for safeguarding web applications, ensuring website continuity during attacks, and protecting infrastructures on services like EKS. Organizations vulnerable to threats, such as online gaming companies, benefit from its capabilities to ward off hackers. It is essential for managing IP rules and securing endpoints against potential attacks, enhancing overall network security measures.

<p>AWS Shield is integrated with AWS, providing a solid first step.</p><p>The ease of use is highly valued.</p><p>There is a strong mechanism to analyze trends and trigger events.</p><p>It does not degrade performance and is transparent.</p><p>AWS Shield excels in defending against denial-of-service attacks in real-time.</p>

Users express satisfaction with AWS Shield's scalability, appreciating its automation and traffic handling capabilities. The tool efficiently manages scaling without user intervention, achieving high marks from various teams. Organizations of differing sizes deploy AWS Shield successfully, indicating its adaptability to various needs. Experienced security professionals find the tool robust, managing scaling effectively for hundreds of users. Feedback highlights that AWS Shield is reliable, fully managed by AWS, and presents no scaling concerns among diverse user bases.

The IFS Cloud Platform implementation involved vendor, internal, and external teams, utilizing diverse expertise for efficient deployment and support.

Before IFS Cloud, businesses faced limited functionality and high costs with outdated, siloed systems needing modern, unified solutions.

IFS Cloud Platform users prefer On-premises deployment, followed by Hybrid Cloud, with fewer choosing Public or Private Cloud options.

4.85

{"quote":"There are fewer fields on the user screen compared to other products.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"6"}

3.33

IFS Cloud Platform setup complexity varies, influenced by project scope, business needs, user training, and technical resources.

Australian support is strong with expert consultants, but timeliness and service consistency vary, impacting resolution times and communication.

{"quote":"There are some stability issues.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"2"}

Microsoft Azure was the preferred choice over Amazon Web Services for IFS Cloud, with some choosing additional providers.

IFS Cloud Platform was preferred for its scalability and user experience, influenced by global evaluations and committee discussions.

IFS Cloud Platform streamlines business processes for over 500 users in aerospace, defense, and digital transformation projects on public cloud.

IFS Cloud Platform is scalable for businesses of all sizes, though some face complexity in updates and dependency management.

Conduct a Fit/Gap analysis, focus on platform features, ensure training, hire consultants, and manage updates and report limitations.

IFS Cloud Platform offers customizable pricing, robust integration, intuitive interface, and excels in enterprise management with adaptable features.

IFS Cloud Platform requires usability, integration, and support improvements, along with enhanced customization, AI, and simplified user experience.

{"quote":"There is not much available online, and the documentation availability is on the lower side compared to other products, especially Maximo.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Documentation-wise, they need more.","score":"8"}

Users reported improved operations and financial reporting with IFS Cloud, seeing up to 4.5x ROI over 18 months.

{"quote":"If you have fewer fields on the screen or tabs, from a UI perspective, it's a little bit better.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"This makes the UI a little bit easier to understand.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"There are fewer fields on the user screen compared to other products.","score":"8"}

Users have interacted with the IFS Cloud Platform for periods varying from a few months to 25 years.

IFS Cloud Platform is praised for stability and reliability, with rare downtime, and depends on client maintenance and setup.

IFS Cloud Platform offers competitive pricing, best for large enterprises, with scalable value similar to SAP and Oracle.

IFS Cloud Platform enhances efficiency and reduces errors through process discipline, customization, integration, and improved data management for organizations.

I have experience with IFS Cloud Platform for work order maintenance, noting its simpler UI due to fewer fields. However, the platform lacks sufficient online documentation compared to Maximo, and I can’t comment on the ROI as I was a consultant.

<p>IFS Cloud Platform offers individualized user profiles and templates that simplify data entry while seamlessly integrating multiple site operations. Its Info-Zone feature enhances productivity with operational intelligence. Despite its recognition by Gartner and scalable architecture, CRM enhancements are needed, particularly in Apps 10. Support services are slow, and integration is complex. Documentation, reporting, and high-volume transaction handling require improvement, affecting its suitability for larger enterprises.</p>

Various organizations previously employed BMC Remedy, CA Service Desk, SAP, Epicor, Oracle Financials, Fourth Shift, Microsoft Service Manager, and bespoke ERP systems before transitioning to IFS. These changes aimed to increase functionality, achieve better reporting, unify processes, enhance user-friendliness, and manage costs. Many found SAP less cumbersome yet more expensive, while Fourth Shift was outdated. Microsoft Service Manager and CA Service Desk changed due to ITIL coverage needs. Multiple systems consolidated under IFS for unified management.

<p>IFS Cloud Platform's CRM could be improved as it is shaky and requires enhancements despite improvements in Apps 10.</p><p>The integration process is complex, and post-implementation support services, especially the response time, need improvement.</p><p>IFS Cloud Platform is not robust enough for high-volume transactions, making it unsuitable for larger enterprises.</p><p>Reporting capabilities should be enhanced, with feedback time increased to improve overall performance.</p><p>Technical support is lacking, with difficulties in obtaining needed assistance, particularly from implementation partners.</p>

IFS Cloud Platform pricing involves upfront negotiations, typically beneficial when factoring in future expansions. It uses a user-based pricing model, granting access to all modules with scalable growth potential, but costs can be higher than alternatives like SAP and Oracle. Licensing is annual without hidden fees, and pricing can be competitive, especially for larger enterprises. While more costly, it's considered reasonable for its comprehensive features and minimal need for customization.

<p>IFS Cloud Platform surpasses its competitors by offering robust scalability, seamless integration across industries, and intuitive user experiences, enabling unparalleled operational efficiency and real-time insights that empower businesses to accelerate digital transformation and drive sustainable growth.</p>

Customers rate IFS Cloud Platform's customer service around 8/10, while technical support averages a 6/10. Australian support is praised; however, global assistance faces criticism for delays. The speed of responses and solution delivery is a common concern. Documentation and self-service portals are appreciated, yet the navigation of their organizational structure can be challenging. Some find support mediocre, noting improvements are needed to match competitors like Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP.

Vendor and in-house teams provide robust expertise for IFS Cloud Platform implementation. Collaborations include consultants and third parties for specific tasks like DBA or guidance. Teams often comprise varying numbers of members. Consistency is ensured by dedicated vendor resources assigned to projects. Some users manage implementation independently but rely on external support or integrators when needed. Limited reachability may necessitate reliance on vendors or integrators for ongoing support.