We performed a comparison between Cisco Sourcefire SNORT 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 solution can be integrated with some network electors like Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco ISE, and Active Directory to provide the client with authentication certificates."
"I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."
"Cisco technical support is unbeatable. It offers a premium service every time."
"The whole solution is very good, and stable."
"The URL filtering is very good and you can create a group for customized URLs."
"In general, the features are all great. However, if I need to take hardware for ASA, because they need to upgrade to Firepower, we want to create rules. For that, most of the time we go to the command line. Right now Firepower is working really hard on the grid. You can apply all those rules to the grid. Even if you want to monitor the logs, for example, the activity will tell you which particular user has been blocked because of that rule. Firepower's monitoring interface is very good, because you can see each and every piece. ASA also had it, but there you needed to type the command and be under the server to see all that stuff. In Firepower you have the possibility to go directly to the firewall. The way the monitoring is displayed is also very nice. The feature I appreciate most in Firepower is actually the grid. The grid has worked very well."
"Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is easy to configure and the reporting is great. It's also very user-friendly."
"Solid intrusion detection and prevention that scales easily in very large environments."
"You can scale the product."
"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's very easy to use and configure. What is nice about Palo Alto is that even if you don't understand how to use it, you can just click on upload and upload everything that needs to be blocked."
"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."
"We are currently using the URL filtering feature, which is the most popular."
"The most valuable features are the simplicity, transparency, and overall ease of management."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"If the price is brought down then everybody will be happy."
"While the alerts they offer are good, it could improve it in the sense that they should be more detailed to make the alerts more useful to us in general. Sometimes the solution will offer up false positives. Due to the fact that the alerts aren't detailed, we have to go dig around to see why is it being blocked. The solution would be infinitely better if there was just a bit more detail in the alert information and logging we receive."
"I did not experience any pain points that required improvement. Maybe a couple of false-positives, but that's about it."
"With the next release, I would like to see some PBR, so that you can do the configuration with the features."
"There are problems setting up VPNs for some regions."
"The initial setup is a little difficult compared to other products in the market. It depends on the environment. If we are doing any migration, it might take months in a brown-field environment."
"Integration with other components — even Cisco's own products — can be enhanced to improve administrative experience."
"I don't think this solution is a time-based control system, because one cannot filter traffic based on time."
"The technology firewall anomaly network could stand improvement."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"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 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."
"It's not so easy to set up a test environment, because it's not so easy to get the test license. The vendor only gives you 90 days for a test license; it's a tough license to get."
"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."
"We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection."
More Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is ranked 13th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is ranked 6th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 24 reviews. Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is rated 7.6, while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT writes "An IPS solution for security and protection but lacks stability". 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 Sourcefire SNORT is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Cisco NGIPS, Check Point IPS, Darktrace and Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection 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 Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB. See our Cisco Sourcefire SNORT 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.