We performed a comparison between Cisco NGIPS and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System 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."IPS is a valuable function, because they update the signatures all the time and it's very granular."
"It is more or less stable. Sometimes I have some issues normally when we need to upgrade it to newer versions. I think it does the job."
"Among all the different solutions I have worked with, such as Palo Alto many other firewalls. Cisco has the support, documentation, and design. The documentation is widely available and it can help you a lot with implementation. It makes the implementation much easier."
"The cost is the most valuable feature."
"This is a stable solution."
"The most valuable features of Cisco NGIPS are protection and reporting."
"The IPS functionality is useful if you have offices all over the place. It's nice to have centralized management instead of going to a separate ASA or FirePOWER device."
"The solution is stable. This is one of the good things in Firepower. Especially if we use ESE with it."
"The most valuable features are the customization of the signature and the unlimited amount of signatures in IPS."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is a good product for dealing with DDoS attacks and for the inspection of network traffic."
"The feature I found most valuable is the network threat analyzer in the security platform. It also integrates with GTI, or Global Threat Intelligence. Otherwise, I just use the basic features."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"McAfee NSP is much more stable than Cisco."
"The solution can scale."
"The most valuable features in Trellix for me are the automated signature updates. It is a great and convenient feature."
"The ability to centrally manage all the IPS sensors, track the different security events generated by it, and customize the different policies, depending on their location."
"Our customers are still facing many bugs on the system. It has matured noticeably, but we are still facing multiple stability issues on Firepower. There are more than 80 or 90 bugs for each release node. It's a considerable number of bugs."
"The solution would be better if it offered customers more integrations and more signatures."
"The GUI user interface could be improved and the login is not very user friendly."
"Multi-internet line load balancing should be supported."
"I think that some initiation scripts might be helpful because they would make the configuration easier and more user-friendly for customers."
"It has room for improvement when it comes to integrating machine learning and AI into it where even if you don't have a baseline that is of length for anomaly detection, it could do more like an AI style machine learning. It learns on its own."
"There are some features not found in Firepower, like data loss prevention, and SSO, to have a connection between Cisco and Active Directory which was introduced on other products."
"In the next release I would like to see better reporting. I also find it's hard to act on the data it gives you."
"The area of concern where the tool needs improvement is how the product prompts users at a network level that helps prevent any wireless network attacks through alerts and notifications."
"There are limited resources for configuration guidance."
"The management component could be simplified."
"The solution could improve some aspects of detection."
"The platform’s GUI could be the latest."
"We would like to have a simpler version. Some settings and functions on the McAfee console are complex and complicated. I want the management console to be simpler."
"Integration with Global Thereat Intelligence could be better. Also, I think management solutions are end of life now at McAfee. Network threat analyzer may be used for endpoint quarantines. Integration between these sides, as well as endpoint APO, will help you quarantine the risky endpoints."
"The Network Security Managers could be more stable, agile, and work faster. When it comes to instability, there is room for improvement."
More Trellix Intrusion Prevention System Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco NGIPS is ranked 5th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 63 reviews while Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is ranked 14th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 14 reviews. Cisco NGIPS is rated 8.2, while Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco NGIPS writes "Very effective for malware and signature-based anomalies but stability needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Intrusion Prevention System writes "Protects from attacks in real-time and provides accurate threat intelligence updates". Cisco NGIPS is most compared with Check Point IPS, Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and Darktrace, whereas Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is most compared with Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point IPS, Trend Micro Deep Discovery and Vectra AI. See our Cisco NGIPS vs. Trellix Intrusion Prevention System 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.
