We performed a comparison between Cisco NGIPS 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."I like how NGIPS has everything in one console."
"The IPS functionality is useful if you have offices all over the place. It's nice to have centralized management instead of going to a separate ASA or FirePOWER device."
"It has aligned the features in accordance to our strategic needs"
"Cisco is number one in the technical support. It's good technical support and this is actually a problem when we do the recruitment for some other products. Other products you are on hold forever and the support might be not the best compared to Cisco."
"You can do zero-day prevention and detection. It's quite useful."
"The top features of Cisco NGIPS, which have been working very well, include stateful inspection and the access list-based security configuration. But from my perspective, the best part of Cisco NGIPS is the licensing process, which is very easy and straightforward. It's essentially copy-paste licensing."
"The cost is the most valuable feature."
"The integration with the Cisco portfolio is very helpful."
"It is a stable product."
"One of the most valuable features is the anti-malware protection."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks."
"The most valuable features are that it's user-friendly, has interesting features, URL filtering, and threat prevention."
"You can scale the product."
"The application control and vulnerability protection are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features are the simplicity, transparency, and overall ease of management."
"With the IP address flag, I was able to see that I was being hacked. The moment there was an interaction between somebody on my network and that IP, the solution was able to flag it, and we were able to protect ourselves."
"The biggest problem with most Cisco products is that the interface is lagging behind the competition. The user interface could be updated and improved."
"Better integration with other products, such as a SIEM tool, would provide better peer visibility about your security posture."
"NGIPS' GUI interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"It has room for improvement when it comes to integrating machine learning and AI into it where even if you don't have a baseline that is of length for anomaly detection, it could do more like an AI style machine learning. It learns on its own."
"I would like to see the sanctions lifted so we could use the full solution and have the speed increased."
"What I don't like about Cisco recently is they keep changing the names, which makes it hard for customers and sometimes even us as engineers to know what is the solution they are speaking about. For example, with AMP, now they call it Secure Endpoint and I don't know if in the next couple of years they're going to change it to something else. They should keep the names the same."
"They could provide one solution to fit all the use cases."
"The solution should contain the sandbox features which we find in Check Point."
"Sometimes when you want to group a set of ports, and communicate with Palo Alto, you cannot group TCP and UDP ports together. This needs to be adjusted."
"The organization mail security solutions could be improved. There is no mail security solution available."
"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."
"Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved."
"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%."
"The application’s pricing and dashboard need improvement. It could be user-friendly."
"The solution needs to improve its local technical support services. There is no premium support offered in our market."
More Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco NGIPS is ranked 5th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 62 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is ranked 6th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 24 reviews. Cisco NGIPS is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cisco NGIPS writes "Very effective for malware and signature-based anomalies but stability needs improvement". 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 NGIPS is most compared with Check Point IPS, Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Cisco Sourcefire SNORT and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System, whereas Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is most compared with Check Point IPS, Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Arista NDR, Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall and Vectra AI. See our Cisco NGIPS 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.