No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire vs RiskIQ Illuminate comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Palo Alto Networks WildFire
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
72
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (1st)
RiskIQ Illuminate
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Attack Surface Management (ASM) (36th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Palo Alto Networks WildFire and RiskIQ Illuminate aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is designed for Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) and holds a mindshare of 7.0%, down 10.8% compared to last year.
RiskIQ Illuminate, on the other hand, focuses on Attack Surface Management (ASM), holds 0.9% mindshare, up 0.2% since last year.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks WildFire7.0%
Microsoft Defender for Office 3656.4%
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint5.8%
Other80.8%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
Attack Surface Management (ASM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
RiskIQ Illuminate0.9%
CrowdStrike Falcon5.8%
Darktrace4.3%
Other89.0%
Attack Surface Management (ASM)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2695164 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Security Specialist at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Advanced threat detection has protected critical document workflows and checks suspicious files
I would say the setup and putting together the hierarchy within the devices was not straightforward. There were many reboots and reconfigurations while the optimal setup was established. However, we were happy with the device. The setup process could be easier to establish the cluster. It should be easier to establish the Palo Alto Networks WildFire cluster between the devices. We had some difficulty with it, but it was not catastrophic. The operation and usability itself is what I was happy with.
SimonClark - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Advisor - Director at Fort Net UK
Able to discover unpatched servers, offers good stability, and scales very well
A low-cost service to evaluate the risk score of a supply chain would be very helpful. This could be useful for insurance companies offering cyber insurance to enterprise customers, providing the insurer with a valuable way to unobtrusively, quickly, and frequently assess their customers and apply appropriate premiums for the level of risk. This would also be useful for enterprises. They could, for example, assess companies prior to a merger or acquisition. What would also be useful for any enterprise would be if their supply chain has some kind of direct digital access to parts of their network.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"With this product, we receive the best monitoring and reports.​"
"The solution is scalable."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"The solution is easy to use and the Panorama feature is good. The software management or the malware blocking and some authentication management system are good."
"The reporting feature helps our performance."
"You have better control because you define apps. You just don't define ports. You define apps, and the apps are monitored in the traffic. It is more specific than the Cisco firewall when it comes to our needs."
"Palo Alto's firewall is the best firewall right now."
"The solution handles DSD segregation and monitors the gateways"
"The solution is stable with 12 years of established historical data."
"Attack Surface Management provided our customers with visibility on everything in their network and domains - anything publicly-facing on the internet - and shows where they have potential vulnerabilities."
 

Cons

"The data analytical system for deployment needs to improve."
"Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that."
"The support is quite difficult to access promptly. I rate it as seven out of ten."
"In terms of what I'd like to see in the next release of Palo Alto Networks WildFire, each release is based on malware that has been identified."
"We also found that several websites do not function well with the SSL Decryption feature."
"The cost of this solution could still be improved, in particular, giving product discounts for charitable causes."
"They can keep on doing more updates. As new malware and viruses are coming out, they can make sure that WildFire is up to date."
"The customer service and support I received was extremely disappointing. There is a lack of SLA adherence, and third-party partners do not provide prompt responses."
"A low-cost service to evaluate the risk score of a supply chain would be very helpful."
"The product scales from small to enormous, however, the pricing is not suitable for very small companies."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is overpriced."
"I use Palo Alto Networks WildFire's free version."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks WildFire could improve. It is expensive. There is an annual subscription to use the solution."
"It's comparable to what the competition is. It is probably a little lesser than what the competition is because, as a state government, we go for whatever the lowest cost is."
"​More expensive than other firewalls.​"
"Palo Alto Networks solutions are typically on the higher end of pricing, but considering the value and integration with our existing infrastructure, it is worth the investment."
"Palo Alto Networks WildFire is an expensive product."
"The price could be better."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user206346 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Consultant at Webernetz.net - Network Security Consulting
Mar 11, 2015
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto Networks
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto: Management Goodies You often have comparisons of both firewalls concerning security components. Of course, a firewall must block attacks, scan for viruses, build VPNs, etc. However, in this post I am discussing the advantages and disadvantages from both vendors concerning…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business38
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise29
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall compare with Palo Alto Networks Wildfire?
The Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is a very powerful and very complex piece of anti-viral software. When one considers that fact, it is all the more impressive that the setup is a fairly straightf...
Which is better - Wildfire or FortiGate?
FortiGate has a lot going for it and I consider it to be the best, most user-friendly firewall out there. What I like the most about it is that it has an attractive web dashboard with very easy nav...
How does Cisco ASA Firewall compare with Palo Alto's WildFire?
When looking to change our ASA Firewall, we looked into Palo Alto’s WildFire. It works especially in preventing advanced malware and zero-day exploits with real-time intelligence. The sandbox featu...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
RiskIQ Digital Threat Management
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Novamedia, Nexon Asia Pacific, Lenovo, Samsonite, IOOF, Sinogrid, SanDisk Corporation
DocuSign, Outbrain, The Economist Group, Rackspace, The Citizen Lab
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Proofpoint, Microsoft and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: July 2026.
909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.