We performed a comparison between Check Point IPS and Cisco Sourcefire SNORT based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Among its great features is the ability to detect outgoing malware or extraction of compromised data and stop it, thus safeguarding us by isolating the network, the equipment, or the identity of the affected users."
"The reports are useful in helping to verify the threats where we can see the level of severity in order to be able to take action."
"User-friendly and easy to implement."
"I can easily monitor all of our connected devices and I get instant notification of reconnections and new connections, which removes some of the monitoring burden."
"The reports that are generated are quite important for our objectives, giving visibility to security flaws and making decisions, an excellent complement for our purpose."
"It is also worth noting that many IPS signature comes with detailed background about the vulnerability, and potentially how the vulnerability would affect the network security."
"IPS signatures can be set quite granularly depending on your environment. You can filter on performance impact, severity, and confidence which makes sizing and adapting easier."
"There's less admin burden to detect these threats as Check Point IPS will do it all for you and suggest the best preventive actions to protect the network."
"Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is easy to configure and the reporting is great. It's also very user-friendly."
"The solution is stable."
"It is quite an intelligent product."
"It would be good to update the public documentation of Check Point so that we can generate improvements and best practices based on the documentation."
"Threat Prevention policies are not very easily manageable as there are several profiles/policies/etc. Therefore, there are several ways to add exceptions and check the configuration."
"The service that we want to see in the future is a capacity to segment the IPS services by equipment."
"When entering, it always takes a long time to load."
"Despite being a blade, this is expensive."
"The cost is a bit high but it is worth it."
"Support is the biggest area for improvement."
"What I would like to improve in IPS would be the capacity of the hardware. I would also like to be able to sort signatures by severity. This would greatly impact how well I can manage my environment."
"The cloud can be improved."
"The implementation could be a bit easier."
"I did not experience any pain points that required improvement. Maybe a couple of false-positives, but that's about it."
Check Point IPS is ranked 2nd in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 24 reviews while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is ranked 16th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 3 reviews. Check Point IPS is rated 8.8, while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Check Point IPS writes "Helpful alerts and reporting, granular rule options, and the update schedule is flexible". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT writes "Intelligent with good threat detection capabilities but could be easier to implement". Check Point IPS is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Darktrace, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB and Fortinet FortiGate IPS, whereas Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention, Cisco NGIPS, Darktrace and Cisco Secure Network Analytics. See our Check Point IPS vs. Cisco Sourcefire SNORT report.
See our list of best Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) vendors.
We monitor all Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
