We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security 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."It is less expensive than alternative firewalls."
"There is a positive impact on security, particularly the intrusion feature, which helps keep the solution concealed and secure."
"Cisco IOS Security is very robust and works very well."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco IOS Security is posturing."
"In Pakistan, we only use Cisco because they have good local support infrastructure. Huawei and Fortinet don't offer direct support in Pakistan."
"The most valuable feature is endpoint protection."
"It covers everything we need it to without looking to secondary solutions."
"The most valuable features are DNS service and shell self-service within a network."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the filtering."
"The most valuable features of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT are the dashboard for monitoring events."
"Cisco technical support is unbeatable. It offers a premium service every time."
"The solution is rather easy to use."
"The URL filtering is very good and you can create a group for customized URLs."
"The product is inexpensive compared to leading brands such as Palo Alto or Fortinet."
"The solution can be integrated with some network electors like Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco ISE, and Active Directory to provide the client with authentication certificates."
"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."
"We have a very bad experience on the support. They take too much time requesting logs, and they are not coming directly online to resolve the issues."
"The routers, don't have like long-term tendency features, or higher availability features available for the IOS. It could also use a better user interface."
"I would love it if it has a link-by-link feature, integration with Unified Threat Management (UTM), and load balancers. They haven't got any link-by-link feature right now, which can be a very attractive option. This link-by-link feature can also be made available for Cisco's UTM firewalls. The link-by-link feature is available in some of the other firewalls. Currently, integration with UTM is missing. Cisco IOS Security also doesn't have the load balancers and a few things that need to be done to get a good UTM firewall. Normally, other firewalls have UTM. As a next-generation firewall, it's good, but as a UTM, it has to do some work."
"It takes too much time to deploy a policy to FMC. It takes around eight minutes. You can't afford any downtime when you're changing policies."
"In the security portfolio from Cisco, the issue is marketing. Cisco is still seen primarily as an enterprise network player rather than being acknowledged as a security vendor."
"We need to pay for the license and it is expensive."
"The pricing is the only con for this product."
"Cisco very slowly introduces and implements the products, unlike other brands."
"I would like to have analytics included in the suite."
"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."
"I did not experience any pain points that required improvement. Maybe a couple of false-positives, but that's about it."
"There are problems setting up VPNs for some regions."
"Integration with other components — even Cisco's own products — can be enhanced to improve administrative experience."
"With the next release, I would like to see some PBR, so that you can do the configuration with the features."
"If the price is brought down then everybody will be happy."
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 10th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 47 reviews while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is ranked 12th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT writes "An IPS solution for security and protection but lacks stability". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Fortinet FortiOS, Meraki MX and Netgate pfSense, whereas Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Cisco NGIPS, Check Point IPS, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and Darktrace. See our Cisco IOS Security 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.
