{"quote":"Bastion provides a kind of isolation between the administration laptop and the server you want to administer.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"8"}

{"quote":"The main problem of Bastion, CyberArk, and WALLIX is that they have the same interface for both administration and users, which is not a good idea from a security perspective.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"2"}

WALLIX Bastion enhances privilege management, security monitoring, and auditing across various industries, ensuring compliance and system integrity.

WALLIX Bastion setup is generally quick and easy, but complex environments and Microsoft integration may extend deployment time.

3.15

Most users adopt an on-premises deployment model for implementing WALLIX Bastion, ensuring secure and efficient access management.

WALLIX Bastion provides secure, agentless privileged access management with browser-based operation, seamless integration, and advanced auditing features.

WALLIX Bastion offers scalable asset management from one platform, widely used by banks, despite scaling challenges in mergers.

{"quote":"CyberArk is not completely stable as it depends on internet connection and architecture.","score":"8"}

Users recommend avoiding Wallix upgrades via its interface, starting with the right license, and planning thoroughly for best results.

WALLIX Bastion requires improvements in security features, password management, user interface, and licensing for better performance and efficiency.

{"quote":"Stability is good if defined as whether it works or not, but for additional security features, it can be more complicated.","score":"7"}

WALLIX Bastion provides flexible, cost-effective licensing with quick setup, offering asset or user-based options for adaptable pricing.

{"quote":"there are challenges with decision-making in implementing corrections","score":"6"}

{"quote":"WALLIX support team is very good","score":"7"}

Users have experienced using WALLIX Bastion for varying durations, ranging from as short as one year to over six years.

WALLIX Bastion is highly stable and reliable for large organizations, though it offers fewer features than top PAM systems.

{"quote":"Bastion is not built for certain types of scaling, such as when a company buys another company and wants to use the same Bastion.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"There should be more effort to increase the level of security.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The main problem of Bastion, CyberArk, and WALLIX is that they have the same interface for both administration and users, which is not a good idea from a security perspective.","score":"9"}

Users prefer WALLIX Bastion for simplicity, integration ease, flexibility, and effective disaster recovery over complex alternatives like CyberArk.

{"quote":"Overall, Bastion has several useful features.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"It offers session management, and you can make videos.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Bastion provides a kind of isolation between the administration laptop and the server you want to administer.","score":"9"}

WALLIX Bastion provides enhanced, user-friendly forensic investigations with video tracking, metadata, and role-based security for improved data management.

<p>WALLIX Bastion provides effective session monitoring and isolation between administration laptops and servers, although performance issues and weak reporting capabilities are concerns. The Linux-based architecture simplifies implementation, and Access Manager offers valuable data center access without VPNs. Despite 24/7 technical support, the system lacks behavior analytics for on-premise versions, and the password manager's performance is low. Improvements are needed in Access Manager management and licensing model unification.</p>

Users previously utilized One Identity SPS and CyberArk before migrating to WALLIX Bastion. They noted One Identity SPS as cheaper but lacking certain features, while CyberArk was favored by Microsoft shops yet regarded as expensive. SonaSecura and Fudo were mentioned as cost-effective alternatives with high performance. Users also highlighted that WALLIX Bastion's integration and ease of use contributed to its appeal, despite its price point being between BeyondTrust and One Identity.

Enterprise buyers of WALLIX Bastion experience adaptable licensing options, including cost-effective asset-based and user-based models. They appreciate choices between subscriptions or one-time licenses with yearly support. Implementing WALLIX Bastion is straightforward, with minimal dependency costs and completion typically within hours. While some express mixed opinions on pricing competitiveness, many find the solution's pricing comparable to other market offerings. Organizations vary in their choice between asset and user licensing, often favoring asset-based for cost efficiency.

<p>WALLIX Bastion surpasses its competitors by offering superior session monitoring, advanced user access management, and seamless integration capabilities, ensuring robust security while streamlining operations for enterprises. Its user-friendly interface further enhances operational efficiency and ease of deployment.</p>

<p>Video recording capabilities have been significantly beneficial.</p>

<p>Being Linux-based facilitates seamless operations without the need for extra database licenses or enterprise licenses.</p>

<p>Access Manager is highly valued for enabling access to data centers without the necessity of a client VPN.</p>

<p>Technical support is responsive and effective, with availability options including 24/7 coverage.</p>

<p>WALLIX Bastion is used to both provide access and monitor sessions, ensuring secure management and control.</p>

Initial setup of WALLIX Bastion is largely straightforward and quick, often requiring only a few hours to days depending on user expertise and environment complexity. Some describe integration as seamless, while others mention challenges, especially with Microsoft or complex setups. Deployment can range from minutes to several months, with performance stabilization potentially extending the timeline. Regardless, experienced users find the deployment not complex and manageable within a shorter timeframe.

<p>WALLIX Bastion lacks behavior analytics for on-premise versions.</p><p>System performance issues are a main concern.</p><p>Reporting is considered weak compared to other solutions.</p><p>WALLIX Bastion's password management performance is low.</p><p>There is a need for more automation features in WALLIX Bastion.</p>

WALLIX Bastion customer service is highly regarded for its diverse language support, offering assistance in English, French, and Russian. Clients find their technical team responsive and capable, though responses occasionally lack precision. Service availability varies based on subscription, with options for weekday or 24/7 assistance. Regional offices, including West Africa, enhance accessibility. Users benefit from 24/7 support, although resolution delays and decision-making challenges occur. The system facilitates both local and remote support efficiently.

Organizations use WALLIX Bastion primarily for privilege access management, storing user activities for decision-making and monitoring. It helps secure remote connections for external vendors and employees, providing role and time-based access control. It's employed in managing privileged user accounts, vendor desktop monitoring, and secure session recording, essential for industries like medical sectors under regulations like HIPAA. WALLIX Bastion offers auditing features but requires complex integration. Some use it to train on Active Directory security and prevent vulnerabilities.

WALLIX Bastion is very stable and highly scalable, often rated eight out of ten in terms of stability. With a robust architecture and seamless usage, it has been adopted by many large organizations, including banks within Nigeria. Users range between 50 to 100 per company. Although it has fewer features than leading PAM solutions, its reliability sets it apart. Some note stability linked to internet connectivity could pose challenges in certain architectures.

Customer service and support of WALLIX Bastion is rated between 7 and 8 out of 10.

WALLIX Bastion requires enhancements in user behavior analytics and two-factor authentication for Windows Active Directory. Users find the password manager's performance low and desire improved automation features. Reporting is seen as weak, while the licensing model could benefit from being more unified. Users suggest better resource optimization, user interface distinction for security, and additional measures like single sign-on and multi-factor authentication. Centralized management for multiple accounts is also sought.

Users advise others to avoid upgrading Wallix through the interface to prevent crashes and start with smaller licenses. They note the importance of proper system sizing to handle performance issues. It's recommended for its low maintenance, evolution with new features, and cost-effectiveness. Organizations should align the solution with their needs by creating detailed RFPs. While dependable and reliable, some users face limitations and untested features. Alerting and reporting features are satisfactory but not exceptional.

Most entities prefer deploying WALLIX Bastion on-premises.

The duration for which WALLIX Bastion has been used ranges from one to more than six years.

WALLIX Bastion offers valuable features including an Access Manager enabling data center access without a VPN, a Password Manager for password retrieval, and video recording capabilities crucial for deployment. Its agentless proxy approach enhances security by isolating administration, auditing connections, and securing privileged access. Being Linux-based, it ensures lightweight and seamless performance. It simplifies compliance, controls privileged access, and manages third-party vendor access effectively, making it highly efficient for cybersecurity needs.

WALLIX Bastion demonstrates moderate to high scalability, adaptable with package selection. The platform efficiently manages various assets in diverse environments without needing additional client tools. Despite its limitations in certain scaling scenarios, entities in Nigeria and beyond are showing increasing interest and usage. It is rated between seven and nine out of ten for scalability, with some having thousands of users.

Organizations report significant improvements with WALLIX Bastion in forensic investigations and data quality. They efficiently monitor external vendors or zero-trust users through video recordings and metadata. User role restrictions prevent password mishandling by vendors or zero-trust IT personnel. WALLIX Bastion is described as fast, effective, and user-friendly, addressing data challenges. It enhances security features for administration, although careful implementation is advised.

Users considered CyberArk and BeyondTrust. They chose WALLIX for its simplicity, seamless integration, and ease in disaster recovery compared to other options, but CyberArk was seen as an alternative to partition internal and external access due to organizational growth and the need for flexibility. WALLIX provided recommended functionality but lacked certain flexibility. In evaluations, other solutions were perceived as heavy on the backend, reinforcing the preference for WALLIX.

Visual Studio Test Professional was chosen for .NET integration and cost, lacking comparable alternatives to BoundsChecker's previous output.

Users considered various alternatives to Visual Studio Test Professional, including Alteryx for cost benefits, Tricentis Tosca and SmartBear TestComplete for functionality. Many relied on Visual Studio's integration with .NET, while others used Selenium Java and Selenium C#. Historical tools like BoundsChecker were noted but lacked support. Microsoft development environments were favored for their features and support. Some used third-party tools before switching to Visual Studio, citing improved code management and integration.

Users evaluated various security solutions, with many choosing Trend Micro Apex One for its pricing, integration, and features.

Users considered multiple options including McAfee, Sophos, Symantec, CrowdStrike, Carbon Black, Kaspersky, Microsoft Defender, and FireEye. Evaluations highlighted McAfee's SIM, Sophos' integration capabilities, Carbon Black's effectiveness, and CrowdStrike's advanced features. Microsoft Defender appealed due to its Azure integration; however, price differences often influenced the choice, with some opting for the advanced features and competitive pricing of Trend Vision One Endpoint Security. Users valued its centralized management and expanded logging capabilities.

Users selected WALLIX Bastion for its integration, flexibility, simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and strong disaster recovery performance over CyberArk.

Users considered CyberArk, BeyondTrust, and SonaSecura alongside WALLIX Bastion. They found WALLIX seamless and straightforward for integration, suitable for disaster recovery and high availability. CyberArk offered a secure cloud-only browser, and was deemed easier for Microsoft environments but more costly. BeyondTrust and One Identity were explored for pricing and features. One Identity was cheaper but lacked certain modules, while SonaSecura and Fudo offered better value in terms of performance and stability.

Users chose Cisco Ethernet Switches for their reliability, comprehensive features, and support over less stable or costly alternatives.

Skilled teams and partners manage implementations with varying expertise, ensuring successful deployments through efficient processes and collaboration.

Most users prefer on-premises Cisco Ethernet Switches, fewer opt for hybrid cloud, and very few choose private cloud.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are user-friendly for setups, but complex configurations and large projects need experienced users or additional support.

Cisco Ethernet Switches customer service is efficient and reliable, though occasionally slow, especially for complex issues.

{"quote":"The Cisco Ethernet switches have improved our network's security, ensuring it is 100% secure by not allowing any external network connections.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"9"}

{"quote":"It takes two to three days for Cisco support to address issues.","quality_score":"6","sentiment_score":"6"}

{"quote":"Cisco Ethernet switches are scalable. However, every four to five years, the entire setup needs to be replaced with the latest products, which does not allow integration with the earlier environment.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"5"}

{"quote":"The solution is very stable and I would rate it as ten out of ten.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"9"}

Cisco Ethernet Switches offer network integration, supporting LAN, VLAN, and centralized management for diverse applications and industries.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are globally preferred for their resilience, scalability, modular integration, despite cost and configuration challenges.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are valued for reliability, scalability, power-saving features, advanced security, and efficient management with user-friendly interfaces.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are reliable with strong support, ideal for enterprises, but pricey; consider needs and budget, experts suggest.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are criticized for high costs, complexity, and compatibility issues, with calls for improved support and features.

{"quote":"However, due to high renewal and setup costs, I would recommend considering alternative products with comparable features.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The solution's durability and sturdiness are significant positives, especially in terms of reliability and long-term use.","score":"9"}

Cisco Ethernet Switches have been utilized across diverse industries for durations ranging from 2 to over 30 years.

7.588955

{"quote":"There is room for improvement in terms of cost.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"2"}

{"quote":"The Cisco Ethernet switches are sturdy products that do not require any kind of maintenance.","quality_score":"10","sentiment_score":"9"}

Cisco Ethernet Switches offer enhanced uptime and high returns due to durability, centralized management, and reduced equipment needs.

8.0

Cisco Ethernet Switches are costly but valued for reliability; competitors like HPE offer cheaper alternatives, influencing budget-focused buyers.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are praised for their reliability, durability, and stable performance, scoring high in user satisfaction ratings.

Users favored Ubiquiti, Meraki, and HPE for budget and user-friendliness, while Cisco excelled in support and documentation.

7.5

Cisco Ethernet Switches increase network reliability and flexibility, offering improved security, seamless integration, and simplified management across locations.

3.5

10

7

{"quote":"I rate as eight out of ten.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"I would rate scalability at seven.","score":"6"}

{"quote":"It takes two to three days for Cisco support to address issues.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The latest products do not allow integration with the earlier environment.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Every four to five years, the entire setup needs to be replaced with the latest products.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Cisco Ethernet switches are scalable.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"The pricing and hardware warranty renewal costs are more expensive than other products.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Cisco Ethernet switches are priced at a rating of nine, indicating they are expensive.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"There is room for improvement in terms of cost.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"They are easy to use and have low maintenance requirements.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The Cisco Ethernet switches are sturdy products that do not require any kind of maintenance.","score":"9"}

<p>Cisco Ethernet Switches offer reliability and robust performance, featuring high-quality hardware and scalable integration. They support diverse network sizes, utilizing advanced tools like DNA Center for enhanced management and VLAN for high traffic handling. Technical support varies, yet often enhances user satisfaction. Challenges include higher costs, licensing complexities, supply chain delays, and occasional software instability, impacting reliability. Despite these issues, they remain strong candidates for demanding network environments.</p>

Previously, they utilized various networking hardware such as HP, Juniper, Dell, 3Com, MicroTech, and Aruba. They found issues with stability or functionality in some cases, leading to a preference for Cisco. D-Link, Brocade, MikroTik, Ruckus, and Surecom were considered, but Cisco's reliability, ease of use, and feature richness stood out. They also encountered issues with Meraki, pfsense, Zentyal, and other lesser-known brands often due to performance or support challenges.

<p></p>

Enterprise buyers considering Cisco Ethernet Switches should anticipate high initial and ongoing costs. While the upfront prices can vary based on device types and support contracts, the overall expense is notably higher compared to alternatives like Huawei or HPE. Licensing and support add to the financial burden, with specific licenses required for advanced features. Discounts are negotiable, especially for large projects, but many companies still view Cisco as an expensive yet reliable choice.

<p>Pricing is a major concern, with Cisco Ethernet Switches being more expensive compared to competitors like Juniper or Aruba.</p><p>Technical support is often criticized for having an inefficient process, starting with beginner-level assistance before reaching experts.</p><p>Licensing and pricing models are overly complicated and are a frequent point of criticism, adding to the high costs associated with Cisco Ethernet Switches.</p><p>Stability issues, including frequent bugs and software problems, especially with BGP protocol recalculation, are noted by users as areas needing improvement.</p><p>Hardware reliability, such as problems with SSDs and other components and a lack of free device replacements until end-of-life, is a recurring issue.</p>

Most implementations of Cisco Ethernet Switches are handled internally, with many companies having in-house teams skilled in deployment and maintenance. In some cases, external experts or vendor teams are used, often resulting in successful outcomes. Expertise levels vary among partners, but configurations are typically completed efficiently. Remote deployments during the pandemic leverage local resources for hardware setup. Complexity and time depend on switch types and client requirements, often requiring dedicated teams for larger installations.

Users find Cisco Ethernet Switches' initial setup straightforward when they have the necessary knowledge, with some mentioning ease due to the setup wizard and documentation. Deployment time varies depending on project size and complexity. Those unfamiliar with networking may encounter challenges. Multiple VLANs and advanced features require careful configuration. Experience and expertise significantly impact how manageable the setup is. Adequate planning and technical resources help achieve efficient deployment.

Users find customer service for Cisco Ethernet Switches to be satisfactory, generally responsive, and effective. While many report positive experiences with technical support, highlighting knowledgeable staff and fast problem resolution, some note inconsistencies in response times and expertise levels. There are acknowledgments of helpful documentation and forums, with some expressing the need for better integration assistance. Variability in service quality based on location and time zones is also mentioned. Most rate the support experience as good to excellent.

Customer service and support of Cisco Ethernet Switches is generally rated positively, with a score of 7 to 9 out of 10.