We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security 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.
"One of the valuable features of the solution is its flexibility and it performs great."
"It covers everything we need it to without looking to secondary solutions."
"Previously, anyone in the organization would see any data point in the wall. They could just go and connect their machine with that data point and could access the network. But now, even if someone came and tried that, they will not be given access."
"Technical support for this solution is very good."
"Cisco Technical Assistance Center works on a follow-the-sun concept and gives real 24x7 customer support, which is a great advantage when you have a service contract with them."
"The solution effectively integrates with Umbrella."
"Cisco has always been a premium product. There's a lot of other entry-level solutions. This is more robust."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable features are that it's user-friendly, has interesting features, URL filtering, and threat prevention."
"The sandboxing tools offer great prevention for cloud feeds."
"It is a stable product."
"Most of the features of Palo Alto Threat Prevention are alright. I recommend features like content filtering, IP address, & intelligent firewalls. The reporting feature is very good."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"The application control and vulnerability protection are the most valuable features."
"The user interface is a bit more professional than some free products."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks."
"Cisco is a scalable product, but it is expensive compared to other vendors."
"The solution is complex and can be more user-friendly."
"I wish it would be more like the next generation firewall technology. There should be more selection between the application and filtering."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"There's a technology called SD-WAN that we would like to see. We are unable to handle multiple connections or to automatically load balance. I would like to have a feature that enables us to automatically prepare for load balancing."
"We need to pay for the license and it is expensive."
"Cisco IOS Security could improve by having more compatibility with other Cisco solutions."
"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."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve the commercial offing. Other solutions, such as Fortinet provide better commercial features."
"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."
"Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The documentation needs to be improved. I need better information about how to configure it and what the best practices are."
"The technology firewall anomaly network could stand improvement."
More Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 10th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 47 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is ranked 7th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 24 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is rated 8.8. 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 Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention writes "A good amount of granularity and advanced URL filtering capabilities". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Fortinet FortiOS, Meraki MX and Netgate pfSense, whereas Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is most compared with Check Point IPS, Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Arista NDR, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. See our Cisco IOS Security 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.
