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 most valuable features of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT are the dashboard for monitoring events."
"The whole solution is very good, and stable."
"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."
"Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is easy to configure and the reporting is great. It's also very user-friendly."
"It is quite an intelligent product."
"The solution is stable."
"It simplifies the configuration process by offering pre-defined base configurations, including security and connectivity settings."
"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."
"With the IP address flag, I was able to see that I was being hacked. The moment there was an interaction between somebody on my network and that IP, the solution was able to flag it, and we were able to protect ourselves."
"One of the most valuable features is the anti-malware protection."
"It is a stable product."
"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 sandboxing tools offer great prevention for cloud feeds."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Threat Prevention for our company is the next generation firewall."
"The user interface is a bit more professional than some free products."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"The customization of the rules can be simplified."
"The solution's approach to managing traffic blocking is confusing and impractical."
"The cloud can be improved."
"We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco."
"If the price is brought down then everybody will be happy."
"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."
"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."
"Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day."
"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%."
"We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection."
"I think they can use some improvement on FID."
"The documentation needs to be improved. I need better information about how to configure it and what the best practices are."
"Mission learning techniques should continue to expand and detect unknown threats on the fly."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"The organization mail security solutions could be improved. There is no mail security solution available."
More Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is ranked 12th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is ranked 7th 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 Vectra AI, whereas Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Check Point IPS, Arista NDR, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System. 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.
