We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks WildFire and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."WildFire has been instrumental in blocking a number of new threats, before common desktop anti-virus tools were able to detect them."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Intuitive threat prevention and analysis solution, with a machine learning feature. Scalable, stable, and protects against zero-day threats."
"It is the best device in comparison to other network products in the marketplace."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is its ability to adapt to environments and its robustness."
"Stability is never a concern."
"Remote access is excellent."
"The MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"Improved our systems and our customers' by providing better malware protection, defense against zero-day threats, and improved network security."
"If we are receiving spam emails, or other types of malicious email coming from a particular email ID, then we are able to block them using this solution."
"The scalability has not been a problem. We have deployed the product in very high bandwidth networks. We have never had a problem with the FireEye product causing latency issues within our networks."
"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"We see ROI in the sense that we don't have to react because it stops anything from hurting the network. We can stop it before we have a bigger mess to clean up."
"The most valuable feature is MVX, which tests all of the files that have been received in an email."
"As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity."
"I don't think it needs to improve anything, except maybe the speed to deploy the changes."
"The solution can improve its traffic management."
"In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file."
"The free version does not have real-time updates. It is slow."
"Management and web filtering can be improved. There should also be better reporting, particularly around web filtering."
"The configuration should be made a little bit easier. I understand why it is as it is, but there should be a way to make it easier from the user side."
"The GUI is better in 8.0, but I still feel it lacks the fast response most of us desire. Logs are much quicker."
"The world is currently shifting to AI, but FIreEye is not following suit."
"Technical support could be improved."
"If you want to search the hashes in the environment, you need to put in IOCs one by one, making it a very hectic job."
"I would love to see better reporting. Because you can't export some of the reports in proper formats, it is hard to extract the data from reports."
"It is not a very secure product."
"It would be great if we could create granular reports based on the protocols, types of attacks, regions of attack, etc. Also we would like to easily be able to add exceptions to rules in cases of false positives."
"I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 37 reviews. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Offers in-depth investigation capabilities, integrates well and smoothly transitioned from a lower-capacity appliance to a higher one". Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection and Netgate pfSense, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiGate, Vectra AI and NetWitness Platform. See our Palo Alto Networks WildFire vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.