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 is stable."
"The product is inexpensive compared to leading brands such as Palo Alto or Fortinet."
"It has a huge rate of protection. It's has a low level of positives and a huge rate of threat protection. It's easy to deploy and easy to implement. It has an incredible price rate compared to similar solutions."
"The whole solution is very good, and stable."
"Cisco technical support is unbeatable. It offers a premium service every time."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically learn the traffic in our environment, and change the merit recommendations based on that."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the filtering."
"I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."
"Edge protection is a valuable feature."
"The user interface is a bit more professional than some free products."
"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 most valuable feature of Palo Alto Threat Prevention for our company is the next generation firewall."
"The sandboxing tools offer great prevention for cloud feeds."
"The most valuable features are the simplicity, transparency, and overall ease of management."
"We are currently using the URL filtering feature, which is the most popular."
"Everything has been okay with the solution. We are using all of the features."
"I would like to have analytics included in the suite."
"To be frank, the product is not really stable, although they're working on that. Whenever I go to the technical community with an issue, they will usually say that it is not there yet, but the technical team are working on it. The issues are not insolvable. I think they should just keep working on the product to make sure that the product can become very stable. The technical support is great. I appreciate that. We have a lot of communities supporting Firepower now, so you can find help for whatever issue you have."
"The cloud can be improved."
"I don't think this solution is a time-based control system, because one cannot filter traffic based on time."
"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."
"Integration with other components — even Cisco's own products — can be enhanced to improve administrative experience."
"The pricing needs to be improved. We have lots of low-budget clients around us. Budget constraints are always a deterrent in our market."
"With the next release, I would like to see some PBR, so that you can do the configuration with the features."
"I think they can use some improvement on FID."
"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%."
"Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day."
"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."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve the commercial offing. Other solutions, such as Fortinet provide better commercial features."
"The documentation needs to be improved. I need better information about how to configure it and what the best practices are."
"We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection."
"The installation was complicated."
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.
