We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is the simple configuration."
"Its performance in fulfilling our requirements has been satisfactory."
"Allows for firewall rules to be programmed and named in a way that makes it “readable”"
"I like several features that this product has, such as antivirus and internet navigation inspection. It is also simple to use."
"We use a lot of function on the IPS and it works well for us."
"It's very fast and easy to configure."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the SD-WAN and their IP4 policy."
"Fortigate's most valuable feature is that it doesn't need a push policy when writing rules."
"The simplicity of the solution is its most valuable asset. It's very user-friendly."
"Forcepoint is a good, stable solution."
"It is a stable solution, and there are no issues so far."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution offers sandboxing, which can be integrated at any time."
"I like the Firewall and the IPS."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"The feature that we like the most about Forcepoint is that we know the technology and have confidence in it. We can have several functionalities to simplify operations and management. We can combine functionalities like log ownership to review the number of devices in the infrastructure."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is a good product for dealing with DDoS attacks and for the inspection of network traffic."
"The feature I found most valuable is the network threat analyzer in the security platform. It also integrates with GTI, or Global Threat Intelligence. Otherwise, I just use the basic features."
"The most valuable features in Trellix for me are the automated signature updates. It is a great and convenient feature."
"Overall the solution is very good. It offers great protection and gives us a good overview of what is on the network."
"The ability to centrally manage all the IPS sensors, track the different security events generated by it, and customize the different policies, depending on their location."
"The most valuable features are the customization of the signature and the unlimited amount of signatures in IPS."
"The solution can scale."
"McAfee NSP is much more stable than Cisco."
"I would suggest that Fortinet add sandboxing to their solution."
"Stability and technical support are the two major issues I have found with Fortinet."
"The captive portal could be improved."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"The customization could be improved. Cisco, for example, is much better at this. They need to work to be at least as good as they are."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"Some of the web policy reports could be improved."
"WAN load-balancing could be a lot better at detecting when a link is poor or inconsistent, and not just flat out dead."
"They need to improve their alerts."
"You do need knowledge of the solution in order to set the product up properly."
"The ability to dynamically change policies could be improved."
"The solution needs to add an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile, not just policies and VPN."
"Its management center should be easier to use. The management interface of Forcepoint is unique and a little bit different from some of the firewall solutions on which people might have worked before. Sometimes, the customers say that it is not very friendly, and we help them with how to use this management interface. It just takes a little bit of time, and after some time, it gets easy to manage or use. It is quite similar to Palo Alto, Fortinet, and legacy Juniper solutions. Their support should be faster. We have received complaints that they are not responding fast, which is not good for the vendor and us."
"Next Generation Firewall's configuration could be improved."
"Its interface is complex when compared with a firewall like FortiGate. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall needs a management console, whereas FortiGate doesn't need any console. When you have a few devices, a console is not really necessary. It's good to have a private console only when you have a lot of devices."
"I would like to see more sizing in the next release, and the roadmap should be clear."
"The area of concern where the tool needs improvement is how the product prompts users at a network level that helps prevent any wireless network attacks through alerts and notifications."
"Some of the documentation is not as straightforward as it could be."
"The Network Security Managers could be more stable, agile, and work faster. When it comes to instability, there is room for improvement."
"The technical support must be improved."
"The solution could improve some aspects of detection."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The platform’s GUI could be the latest."
"We would like to have a simpler version. Some settings and functions on the McAfee console are complex and complicated. I want the management console to be simpler."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Intrusion Prevention System Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 31st in Firewalls with 40 reviews while Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is ranked 14th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 14 reviews. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6, while Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Good URL filtering with helpful technical support and good scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Intrusion Prevention System writes "Protects from attacks in real-time and provides accurate threat intelligence updates". Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG and Azure Firewall, whereas Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is most compared with Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Cisco NGIPS, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point IPS and Trend Micro Deep Discovery.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
