We performed a comparison between Check Point IPS and Cisco Sourcefire SNORT 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 reports are useful in helping to verify the threats where we can see the level of severity in order to be able to take action."
"Protection in real-time is very good. It helps us detect things on time and make decisions to improve perimeter security."
"Its event analysis and centralization features are very important for any organization."
"User-friendly and easy to implement."
"What I like best about Check Point IPS is that it can prevent attacks. I also like that it has a log feature."
"Real-time protection has blocked most threats that could affect system operations."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its detection panel. Managing and updating policies within Check Point IPS is easy and without issues. It provides a secure network."
"We are able to define our own rules for detection."
"I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."
"Solid intrusion detection and prevention that scales easily in very large environments."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility that we have across the virtual environment."
"It is quite an intelligent product."
"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."
"The solution is stable."
"It simplifies the configuration process by offering pre-defined base configurations, including security and connectivity settings."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the filtering."
"Sometimes protections are 'aggregated' into a single threat name when you look at the logs. I would prefer to see all protections named individually (for example, right now, 'web enforcement' is a category that contains several signatures)."
"The solution’s deployment could be easier."
"After the R80 release, there are almost all feature sets available under IPS Configuration. However, further to this, adding a direct vulnerability scan based on ports and protocol for every zone (LAN, DMZ, or Outside) will make Check Point very different compared to other vendors on the market."
"The hardware-based version of Check Point IPS could be more scalable. Right now, it's not scalable."
"Check Point IPS' main problem is it is mostly software based. The performance is dependent on the CPU power, and the limited number of patterns."
"Having additional reports available would be helpful."
"The cost is a bit high but it is worth it."
"The cost is high."
"Integration with other components — even Cisco's own products — can be enhanced to improve administrative experience."
"I did not experience any pain points that required improvement. Maybe a couple of false-positives, but that's about it."
"The customization of the rules can be simplified."
"I don't think this solution is a time-based control system, because one cannot filter traffic based on time."
"The main dashboard of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT could improve."
"We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco."
"Performance needs improvement."
"The implementation could be a bit easier."
Check Point IPS is ranked 3rd in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 46 reviews while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is ranked 12th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews. Check Point IPS is rated 8.6, while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Check Point IPS writes "Great for detection and access with the capabilities of defining specific rules". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT writes "An IPS solution for security and protection but lacks stability". Check Point IPS is most compared with Darktrace, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System and Vectra AI, whereas Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Cisco NGIPS, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Darktrace and Vectra AI. See our Check Point IPS vs. Cisco Sourcefire SNORT 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.
