Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) vs Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS)
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Palo Alto Networks Advanced...
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) category, the mindshare of Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) is 4.4%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is 7.4%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
 

Featured Reviews

Yosevan Sinaga Sinaga - PeerSpot reviewer
Effectively identifies malicious behavior while future automation and AI advancements hold potential
Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) ( /products/cisco-secure-ips-ngips-reviews ) is quite powerful for threat detection and includes botnet detection. It effectively blocks unwanted software, hashes, and suspicious behaviors. The tool is easy to integrate with other IT security solutions due to similar protocols. The system offers effective threat detection features, although automation capabilities are not yet fully utilized.
Carlos Bracamonte - PeerSpot reviewer
Robust, reliable, simple to install and good technical support
We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection. I'm not sure what the remaining threat protection features are off the top of my head. But beyond that, we use URL filtering. We have three approved cases for using external dynamic lists that are stored in a bucket repository. Then, for each URL site that needs to be whitelisted, we add it to the external dynamic list in order to gain access to this email. I would like Wildfire to be implemented. We use the equivalent in Cisco is the integration policies. We have the Wildfire but we are not currently implementing it. We don't have the license to use it, but we are not currently implementing it until we present the use cases that the company gives some value to and they approve the use of it.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We have found the product to be quite stable."
"I have found the filter and the antivirus to be most valuable."
"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 threat detection and prevention feature is particularly important for us."
"Cisco NGIPS is working well overall with our current needs."
"The most valuable features of Cisco NGIPS are the VPN, IPS, access policy management, EIM, and the ASA model as part of Firepower."
"In the virtual deployment, you have a couple of choices depending on your needs and how much bandwidth you have that needs to be inspected."
"The most valuable feature would be the IPS is very important in Cisco Firepower because I can configure deep configuration in IPS and tuning."
"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 most valuable feature is its use of machine learning to detect potentially unknown threats."
"One of the most valuable features is the anti-malware protection."
"We are currently using the URL filtering feature, which is the most popular."
"I like the solution's interface."
"Edge protection is a valuable feature."
"It is a stable product."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
 

Cons

"Some Next-Generation Firewall solutions come with Intrusion Prevention. It would be nice if Cisco NGIPS included that."
"I think the part of IPS and everything else needs to be better equated to the real needs or current needs of the business compared to the other manufacturer, because it is not straightforward, a way to configure it compared to the other competitors."
"Customer support needs improvement."
"The initial setup is a bit complex because it requires a lot of configuration, firewall and zoning."
"The solution would be better if it offered customers more integrations and more signatures."
"The attack patterns and payloads go undetected in Cisco. We would like to see a new solution with more effective detection of attack patterns. There should be more data analyzing patterns as well which provides useful information."
"We don't like its licensing model. It has separate licensing for all the features. For instance, to get URL filtering, you need to buy another license. Every feature set seems to require another license. Unless you purchase them all upfront, you find some surprises and realize that you can't do that because you need another license. Its logging isn't quite as good as it used to be in our previous solution. We used to have Cisco ASA, and we could view the logs a lot easier than NGIPS (also known as Firepower). We saw real-time logging, but we don't see that as much in Firepower."
"There is room for improvement in the policy documentation."
"The documentation needs to be improved. I need better information about how to configure it and what the best practices are."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day."
"The price of licenses should be lowered to make it less costly to scale our solution."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve the commercial offing. Other solutions, such as Fortinet provide better commercial features."
"Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the only thing I don't like is the support."
"The solution needs to improve its local technical support services. There is no premium support offered in our market."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are licensing fees depending on the features that you are using."
"It could be less expensive."
"When it comes to pricing you pay for a permanent licensing structure. One, three, and five-year options. There are no extra costs."
"The weakness of Cisco Firepower is the cost. Some of the customers see it as very expensive."
"I usually work with Fortinet and FortiGate which is a lower cost in comparison with Cisco NGIPS."
"The price of the solution is expensive to a degree it cannot be used by small businesses. It is best suited for medium and enterprise businesses."
"Cisco products are not cheap and this solution is no different."
"We buy the licensing on a yearly basis, when we renew our contract. It is around $14,000."
"The product’s pricing is expensive for small companies."
"The pricing could be lower."
"If you want to have all of the good features then you have to pay extra for licensing."
"It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"There is an initial, expensive investment but the return is good."
"It's not too expensive."
"The price of the solution is higher than others on the market. A price reduction would be beneficial if it does not impact their database quality."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
University
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco NGIPS?
The product's initial setup phase was easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco NGIPS?
Cisco is one of the top brands known for cost-effectiveness, making it worth the money. It's cheaper to integrate with existing IT security solutions compared to other expensive brands with subscri...
What needs improvement with Cisco NGIPS?
In the future, I hope to see automation features like automatic blocking and rule creation. Additionally, incorporating AI capabilities would enhance its functionality.
Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?
Arbor would be the best bid, apart from Arbor, Palo Alto and Fortinet have good solutions. As this is an ISP, I would prefer Arbor.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention?
The pricing is competitive, and with current campaigns and discounts, it provides an excellent device for a reasonable price.
 

Also Known As

Sourcefire NGIPS, Firepower NGIPS
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

American Electric Power, Huntington Bank, Keycorp, Nationwide, Transunion, Marriott, Inova Health, Ford, Thomson Reuters, Dow Chemical, Equifax, Chevron, Walmart, Coca Cola
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, SkiStar AB, TRI-AD, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) vs. Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.