We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security and Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention 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.
"The most valuable feature is endpoint protection."
"The most valuable features are DNS service and shell self-service within a network."
"It is less expensive than alternative firewalls."
"Cisco IOS allows us to keep the same security features as our principal offices."
"The technical is excellent."
"We use the product for firewalls."
"Cisco is head-and-shoulders above all of the competition when it comes to technical support."
"What I have used the most and received the most benefit from is the IPsec technology."
"You can scale the product."
"For those who want a next-gen firewall that's easy to configure and easy to operate, I think you should go for Palo Alto."
"The stability of Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is good."
"Most of the features of Palo Alto Threat Prevention are alright. I recommend features like content filtering, IP address, & intelligent firewalls. The reporting feature is very good."
"The most valuable features are that it's user-friendly, has interesting features, URL filtering, and threat prevention."
"It is a stable product."
"I like the solution's interface."
"Everything has been okay with the solution. We are using all of the features."
"We faced significant challenges related to licensing issues, particularly when licenses expire."
"I would like to see much more embedded security that works and that isn't a bolt-on."
"We need to pay for the license and it is expensive."
"The graphical user interface or the GUI could be better. Beginners can use some devices with the GUI, but some security devices are configured using CLI. It would also be better if it had its own Intrusion Protection Service and Intrusion Detection Service on the server."
"In the security portfolio from Cisco, the issue is marketing. Cisco is still seen primarily as an enterprise network player rather than being acknowledged as a security vendor."
"The solution is not user friendly and it is hard to manage the GUI interface."
"An area for improvement in Cisco IOS Security is the performance because it's not as stable sometimes. There's also some latency in the solution, which could be improved. Cisco IOS Security integrates with other solutions, but you'll encounter many errors after integration, so this is another area for improvement. I'd like to see enhanced performance and a simplified setup in the next version of Cisco IOS Security."
"We have a very bad experience on the support. They take too much time requesting logs, and they are not coming directly online to resolve the issues."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Right now we are focusing on email. If Palo Alto can increase the features related to email filtering and the new malware, it would help us protect our systems."
"Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day."
"The pricing has improved with the newer generation of their Firewalls, but the price could always be lower. In comparison with other solutions, I believe they're quite competitive."
"The technology firewall anomaly network could stand improvement."
"I think they can use some improvement on FID."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve the commercial offing. Other solutions, such as Fortinet provide better commercial features."
"In Africa, the technical support is probably not as good as in Europe and the USA because it's a specific premium support, partner-enabled premium support and all of that. But it's really good, I don't really have any complaints, it's fairly good. I'll give them 80%."
More Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 11th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 47 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is ranked 6th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 24 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention writes "A good amount of granularity and advanced URL filtering capabilities". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki MX, Fortinet FortiOS and Netgate pfSense, whereas Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is most compared with Check Point IPS, Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Arista NDR, Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall and Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System. See our Cisco IOS Security vs. Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention 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.
