Users explored Imperva Incapsula, ModSecurity, and AWS WAF before selecting Wallarm NG WAF. Imperva Incapsula did not provide the required API security. ModSecurity needed extensive manual configuration and maintenance. AWS WAF lacked the required automated threat detection and mitigation capabilities. Wallarm NG WAF was chosen for its comprehensive security features, ease of deployment, and advanced threat intelligence integration.
Users considered alternatives like Threat Stack, Imperva, and Signal Sciences. Threat Stack appeared too costly, Imperva lacked real-time insights, and Signal Sciences had integration challenges.
Users considered competitors such as DigiWare and CryptoShield due to their extensive features and integrations. However, they shifted to HiddenLayer for its superior user interface, faster implementation, and robust security measures. Several also evaluated ConfiGuard but found HiddenLayer's customer support and pricing more attractive. Some mentioned trying DataSafe, but HiddenLayer's real-time monitoring and easier scalability influenced their decision.
Many users explored IBM Watson for its strong analytics, Microsoft Azure for its cloud integration, and Amazon SageMaker for its scalability. They chose Qevlar AI due to better user experience, seamless integration, and superior customer support. Some compared it to Google AI Platform and appreciated Qevlar AI's ease of setup and cost-effectiveness.
Clients commend Cellebrite's implementation team for professionalism, swift issue resolution, knowledgeable support, seamless integration, and effective communication.
Users evaluated EnCase, Axiom, and BlackLight for data extraction and analysis. They chose Cellebrite Digital Intelligence Platform due to its superior ease of use, comprehensive features, and reliable performance. The positive reputation among professionals and better customer support also influenced their decision.
GrayKey's implementation team is praised for their expertise, responsiveness, knowledge, efficiency, and ability to ensure smooth transitions and user satisfaction.
Users considered Cellebrite and BlackBag, but chose GrayKey for its speed and efficiency in retrieving data. They found GrayKey more reliable and versatile for accessing locked devices. Some users were initially drawn to Oxygen Forensics for its comprehensive features but preferred GrayKey after successful trials. GrayKey's ability to handle the latest iOS updates impressed users who switched from other tools that failed to do so. Price and compatibility were also factors in choosing GrayKey.
The implementation team is praised for their efficiency, quick responses, expertise, proactivity, professionalism, and significant contribution to success.
Users evaluated Algolia, Elasticsearch, and Bloomreach before choosing Constructor due to their strong search functionality and relevance. Algolia was praised for speed but lacked the customization Constructor offered. Elasticsearch was noted for its flexibility but required significant maintenance. Bloomreach was considered for its personalization capabilities but didn't meet requirements in terms of ease of use and support. Users appreciated Constructor for its comprehensive support and scalable, customizable search capabilities.
CloudZero's implementation team is praised for responsiveness, expertise, proactive support, and enhancing platform effectiveness during setup, ensuring customer success.
CloudZero was preferred for its user-friendly interface and exceptional cost visibility despite other tools being considered for broader functionality.
Users evaluated AWS CloudWatch, Datadog, and New Relic before selecting CloudZero. AWS CloudWatch was considered due to its integration with AWS services; Datadog appealed for its comprehensive monitoring; New Relic was noted for its application performance management. CloudZero was ultimately chosen for its granular cost visibility and efficient cost management features, which outweighed the capabilities of competitors.
Insys Video Technologies' implementation team is praised for expertise, efficiency, responsiveness, professionalism, and excellent communication, ensuring seamless installations.
Users preferred Insys Video Technologies for its superior customization, cost-effectiveness, customer support, intuitive interface, and seamless integration capabilities.
Before choosing Insys Video Technologies, users considered Brightcove and Wowza due to their advanced streaming features. They also evaluated Kaltura and Vimeo for their user-friendly interfaces. However, Insys Video Technologies was preferred for its customizable options and reliable support.
Before Cisco Secure Email, they utilized various email security solutions including Barracuda, McAfee, Trend Micro, Symantec, Proofpoint, Microsoft, and Mimecast.
Users evaluated alternatives such as Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, Proofpoint, Trend Micro, Check Point, Barracuda, FortiMail, Forcepoint, and Postini. Microsoft options were often considered less effective and more costly once advanced features were added. Some favored Proofpoint's DLP policies despite its higher price. Check Point and Trend Micro were found complex and unstable. FortiMail and Barracuda were mentioned but not preferred. Cisco's familiarity, integration, and support were decisive factors.
Before adopting Proofpoint Email Protection, users often used Symantec, Microsoft Defender, Barracuda, Mimecast, Trend Micro, Cisco, McAfee, SonicWall, and Google Workspace.
<p>Users chose Proofpoint Email Protection for its superior spam, phishing protection, cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and email security capabilities.</p>
<p>Users evaluated several options like Microsoft ATP, Mimecast, Symantec, and Forcepoint. Many switched from Microsoft, Symantec, and Trend Micro due to performance, cost, and support issues. Some are comparing Proofpoint Email Protection with alternatives like Defender and Abnormal Security. Others considered Mimecast and Microsoft 365 E5 for cost-effectiveness and integration. Experience with Cisco, Barracuda, and SolarWinds Mail Assure was mentioned. Most found Proofpoint superior in email security features and effectiveness.</p>
Users preferred ProcessMaker IDP for its user-friendliness, customization, integration, accuracy, support, simplicity, and robust features over other automation tools.
Users evaluated ABBYY FlexiCapture and UiPath before selecting ProcessMaker IDP. Reasons included ProcessMaker IDP's superior ease of integration, user-friendly interface, and cost-effectiveness. ABBYY FlexiCapture was considered complex, while UiPath lacked some essential features.
Meter's implementation team is praised for their knowledge, efficiency, clear communication, and proactive, professional support ensuring a seamless onboarding experience.
Users considered Cisco and Meraki, finding them complicated and cumbersome. Ubiquiti was an option, but lacked scalability. Some evaluated Ruckus and found it expensive. Others looked at Aruba, noting its complexity and high maintenance. A few explored Netgear and TP-Link, dismissing them for lack of enterprise features. Meter was ultimately chosen for its ease of use, reliability, and efficient support.
Users chose Xpoda for its user-friendly interface, superior customization, cost efficiency, flexibility, easy deployment, and excellent customer support.
Users evaluated Microsoft PowerApps, OutSystems, and Mendix before choosing Xpoda. They switched due to Xpoda's user-friendly interface, lower cost, and streamlined operations. Xpoda's customization and integration capabilities were also praised compared to other platforms.
<p>Users transitioned to AlphaPoint Platform from IBM Blockchain, ConsenSys, R3 Corda, Hyperledger Fabric, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Managed Blockchain.</p>
AlphaPoint's team is praised for professionalism, expertise, prompt responses, smooth transitions, deep blockchain knowledge, and continuous client support.
Users chose AlphaPoint Platform for its easy integration, excellent support, and cost-effectiveness over Ethereum, IBM Blockchain, and Hyperledger Fabric.
Users considered IBM Blockchain, Hyperledger, and Ethereum before choosing AlphaPoint Platform due to its ease of use, cost efficiency, and customizable features. They appreciated how AlphaPoint Platform offered superior customer support and seamless integration with existing systems compared to the alternatives.
Users considered Salesforce, Oracle, and ServiceNow before choosing Carahsoft. Carahsoft was praised for its excellent customer support, user-friendly interface, and robust features tailored to specific requirements. Salesforce and Oracle were noted for being complex and costly, while ServiceNow lacked certain critical functionalities. Carahsoft's competitive pricing and comprehensive support services were key factors in its selection.
The Resolver GRC Suite implementation team is professional, responsive, and efficient, delivering tailored solutions and ensuring a stress-free process.
Users considered Archer and SAP GRC for their flexibility and strong integration capabilities but found them too complex and costly. ZenGRC was evaluated for its user-friendly interface but lacked the customization options. MetricStream was also considered for its robust functionalities, yet it didn't meet budget constraints. ACL GRC was seen as a potential option but didn't offer sufficient scalability. They selected Resolver GRC Suite for its balanced cost-effectiveness and adaptability.
Prior to selecting Canto Cumulus, users explored ACDSee and Adobe Bridge due to their reputation for reliability and features. However, Canto Cumulus was favored for its customizable metadata, seamless integration with existing systems, and robust search capabilities. Users also appreciated its scalability and ease of use, which were more aligned with their requirements compared to alternatives.
The AlertEnterprise Guardian implementation team is praised for its expertise, responsiveness, customization, clear communication, professionalism, and customer-centric approach.
Users chose AlertEnterprise Guardian for its advanced security capabilities, threat analytics, and user-friendly interface over complex, costly alternatives.
Many users considered IBM Guardium but chose AlertEnterprise Guardian for better scalability. Some evaluated Microsoft Azure Sentinel but preferred more flexibility. Others looked at Splunk Phantom but found AlertEnterprise Guardian's user interface more intuitive. A few compared it with RSA NetWitness but opted for stronger integration capabilities. One mentioned considering Fortinet FortiSIEM but selected AlertEnterprise Guardian for superior incident response features.
INSILLION's implementation team is professional, responsive, knowledgeable, and provides tailored, clear, and thorough support ensuring smooth integration.
Users considered alternatives like Asana, Trello, and Monday.com before choosing INSILLION. They cited INSILLION's superior customization options, more intuitive user interface, and stronger integration capabilities with existing tools. Some mentioned that INSILLION better addressed specific project management challenges and provided a smoother onboarding experience for their teams. Additionally, pricing structure and customer support were noted as factors that tipped the scale in favor of INSILLION.
Users considered Okta, Authy, and Duo Security before using Futurae Authentication Platform due to their industry reputation and feature sets. However, they chose Futurae Authentication Platform for its seamless integration, user-friendly interface, and innovative adaptive authentication methods. Its competitive pricing and excellent customer support were also key deciding factors.
Hyperproof's implementation team is praised for efficiency, expertise, clear guidance, responsiveness, and providing a smooth, well-coordinated implementation process.
Users considered Vanta, Secureframe, Drata, and OneTrust before choosing Hyperproof. Vanta was noted for its automation capabilities, Secureframe offered efficient onboarding, Drata was praised for its integrations, while OneTrust was recognized for its comprehensive platform. Users ultimately found Hyperproof to be more user-friendly and adaptable to their specific requirements.
Users praise Portnox Cloud's implementation team for their professionalism, quick response, tailored support, technical expertise, and exceptional customer service.
Users considered Cisco ISE, Aruba ClearPass, and Microsoft Intune before choosing Portnox Cloud. Cisco ISE was seen as complex to manage and costly. Aruba ClearPass had similar functionality but required significant infrastructure investment. Microsoft Intune was evaluated but did not meet users' specific access control requirements. Portnox Cloud was preferred for its ease of deployment, cost-effectiveness, and user-friendly interface.
Portnox CORE users typically handle deployments independently, often without needing integrators or consultants, ensuring a smooth implementation process.
Users evaluated Cisco ISE and Aruba ClearPass but found them overly complex and lacking in seamless integration. Some preferred Portnox CORE due to its ease of setup and user-friendly interface. Others considered FortiNAC but felt it did not meet their requirements as effectively as Portnox CORE. A few users mentioned evaluating other network access control options but chose Portnox CORE for its cost-effectiveness and robust feature set.
Users explored Recorded Future and ThreatConnect but chose KELA Cyber for its superior threat intelligence capabilities and user-friendly interface. Some also considered Digital Shadows but found KELA Cyber more comprehensive. ThreatQuotient was another alternative, but KELA Cyber's real-time data stood out. Several users evaluated Anomali but preferred KELA Cyber's integration features.
Users were using various cybersecurity services including CrowdStrike, IntSights, FireEye, Recorded Future, Paladion Networks, Darktrace, ThreatQuotient, and Proofpoint.
KELA Cyber's implementation team is praised for expertise, responsiveness, customization, professionalism, and technical knowledge, enhancing user experience and satisfaction.
Users evaluated Darktrace for network threat detection, Recorded Future for threat intelligence insights, and CrowdStrike for endpoint protection prior to selecting KELA Cyber. They needed a comprehensive approach combining active monitoring, real-time alerts, and actionable insights into cyber threats. KELA Cyber's ability to deliver precise threat intelligence and proactive monitoring was a decisive factor. Users highlighted KELA Cyber's unique features and capabilities as differentiators compared to other platforms considered.
Bynder's implementation team is praised for being responsive, knowledgeable, professional, and providing clear communication, effective training, and customized support.
Users considered using Adobe Experience Manager and Widen Collective because of their functionalities and features. Adobe was noted for its integration with other tools but had a steep learning curve. Widen Collective was praised for its user-friendly interface and extensive support but was found to be more costly. Bynder was ultimately chosen for its ease of use, scalability, and strong customer support.