Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) Reviews

We use this product for intrusion protection.

The most valuable feature is security.

The onboarding process could be made a little bit better.

I have been working with Cisco NGIPS for one year.

We haven't had any problems with this product.

I configured the system myself and the process was okay.

In general, I have nothing negative to say about this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to secure our client's networks.

Overall, it lacks user-friendliness. It could be easier to manage. I can train any customer using FortiGate or Palo Alto in a few days, but with Cisco, it takes much more time because the systems aren't easy to use.

It would be very nice to get rid of FlexConfig. It's a very unhelpful element of the solution.

One feature that is lacking is full interoperability with CLI.

You can configure Palo Alto and FortiGate with a graphical interface, and you can configure it with the command line. This is not so in Cisco. For professionals, this is important because the command line allows us to configure a lot of things and copy configurations and it's much easier.

Technical support is quite good. With firewalls, the last cases I had with Cisco were professionally handled quite quickly and it was great. I can compare with some other manufacturers. FortiGate is awful, for example. I'm generally pleased with Cisco.

The solution has a moderate amount of difficulty. You need to go over and use the documentation.

Cisco has a device manager now but this device manager is not like all device managers from ASA. It lacks a lot of features, and some of these features are very important. It makes it a challenge to configure because of the graphical interface. You have to install the management center and that itself takes time and it's not so simple.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

Ten years ago, when you sold Cisco to clients, customers complained about the price but they knew they were buying the best product in the market. It is totally different now. If they want to buy the best product in the market, they buy Palo Alto or Check Point. Cisco is trying to catch up to the competition.

When we talk about just the IPS manufacturers, I would rate the solution around six or seven out of ten. If we're talking about Cisco as a whole, I would rate them eight out of ten.  

Our primary use case is securing the network. It has a deep learning intelligence ability to filter packages and traffic coming to networks and to different workstations in networks. 

This solution is deployed on-premises. 

The most valuable feature is its IPS ability. You are able to balance security and connectivity. 

The CLI, the console line interface, of the FTD could be improved. It's very complex, so without a GUI, it doesn't work well. I would like it to be more simple. 

As far as additional features or next releases, I think the price could be cheaper. 

We have been using this solution for more than eight years. 

This product is stable. 

This product is very scalable. 

Cisco's technical support is very, very fast. 

Before implementing Cisco, we used Fortigate and Check Point. 

The installation is straightforward. You have to install the device, but if you want to actually manage it, you need a GUI for it. For deployment, you will need two engineers, maximum. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team and deployed it ourselves. 

We pay for the IPS license to use this solution. 

I rate this product a nine out of ten, and would recommend this product to others who are considering using it. 

We use this product to prevent unwanted traffic and to define policies.

The tracking intelligence feature is very good. This solution provides us with the opportunity to detect threats in real-time. 

Some Next-Generation Firewall solutions come with Intrusion Prevention. It would be nice if Cisco NGIPS included that. 

I have been using this solution for almost one year. 

Cisco's support is unmatched. There are very few companies that can match their support. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. 

We primarily use the solution for network firewalling and intrusion prevention.

We get a bit of visibility into network threats and we can successfully mitigate those threats by using the product.

The most valuable feature would be the intrusion prevention for us for security reasons.

The setup is pretty straightforward.

The solution gives us a lot of visibility into our security.

The product is quite stable.

There are pretty good capabilities for scaling.

Currently, this product is difficult to manage. It needs to be more user-friendly.

A lot of improvements can be made into the overall architecture of the firewall. It's lacking right now. It's something they need to work hard to improve.

The reason for the lack of cohesion in the architecture is due to the fact that Cisco acquired this company and then they merged two products, the Cisco ASA and the Firepower product, into a single product. As a result, the product is not as mature as some of the other comparable products out in the industry.

The price is in the high end of the spectrum, again, comparing to other players in the industry.

The solution requires better management. When it comes to central management capabilities, improvements can be made. 

Better reporting in terms of analytics and dashboards would be very useful in future versions.

We've been using the solution for about five years now.

The stability overall has been good once we get it up and running. We've not seen any issues once we've launched everything. It isn't buggy or glitchy. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The scalability on the solution is good overall. They have a central management console that can assist with the process. The only issue there is we feel like there's room for improvement on the administration side of things.

When it comes to a user installing the networks, all the users essentially traverse this firewall, but when it comes to the administrators of the product, we've got five administrators in networking, they pretty much use it on a daily basis.

The technical support has been good. We're satisfied with the level of service we get. They know what they are talking about. They respond promptly. Overall, they are above-average. I'd rate them eight out of ten. 

Of course, there's always a little bit of room for improvement from any technical support service. In general, it's always about the speed of resolving an issue, responsiveness, et cetera. These are common industry wide. We always want everything resolved faster.

We previously used FortiGate. We switched as we wanted something that had easy management capabilities, so we moved to Cisco. We thought that Cisco would be a bit more mature.

The initial setup is a little bit difficult. It's pretty straightforward, although if we look at it relative to other products on the market, we feel that the other products are easier to set up compared to this one.

The pricing is actually pretty high, especially if you compare it to other solutions that are out there. They are comparable but cost less.

The advice we would give to other organizations is to look at the administrative overhead, and also to pay close attention to when the company is deploying it. We feel that there are certain feature functionalities that might not be mature depending on a company's use case. Everything depends on use cases. A company needs to evaluate its own unique use case, and look at the product feature functionality. A company also needs to look at some of the administrative overhead before they choose the product to make sure that it is suitable for their environment.

This solution overall I would rate at seven out of ten. I would say it's a good product if you look at the primary functionality, which is intrusion prevention. It's is one of the best out there, however, the issue is it's been wrapped around an administrative layer which is quite difficult compared to other products. They've got a really good engine as far as IPSs go, and that's the most important thing. 

We use it for threat prevention.

It has increased our security posture and has contributed substantially to our security maturity by stopping threats.

• It has good intelligence.
• It does a great job at stopping threats.

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 stability is excellent.

The scalability is excellent.

Technical support has been excellent.

The initial setup is complex. That's just the nature of that product. It's a really advanced product so it takes a lot of technical knowledge to implement it.

We used a reseller. 

We have definitely seen ROI, but I can't quantify it.

Get a good demo to test it out or do a proof of concept to see if it it's what you're looking for.

I rate it an eight out of ten. Eight because it's good at detecting and stopping threats. Those other two points that would make it a ten are better usability and reporting.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall. It's for company security.

The solution is easy to use.

We have found the product to be quite stable. 

The installation process is not difficult.

The solution would be better if it offered customers more integrations and more signatures.

I've been using the solution for around four years. It's been a while. It's useful for anomaly detection, impact inspection, signatures, and stuff like that.

The stability of the product is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is good and we consider it reliable. 

We have around 2,000 users in our organization using the solution.

We have contacted Cisco technical support in the past. Their support is the best in the market. We are very satisfied with the level of service they provide to their clients. 

We are using both Cisco and Fortinet.

It's very straightforward and very easy to set yo the solution. It's not overly complex. 

It took us one to two days at a maximum to install everything and to get everything going. 

We have two technicians and three engineers that can handle any deployment or maintenance tasks.

We handled the setup ourselves. We did not require the assistance of any integrators or consultants. It was all done in-house. 

We have a subscription for the signatures and footprints. 

We are a customer and an end-user.

We always use two older versions than the latest in case the latest has bugs or issues.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

I would recommend this product to other users and companies. 

We primarily use this solution as an application filter and for IPS. We have an on-premises deployment.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the support.

I would like to see the total performance for the users improved.

We have a need for security, so we would like to see more protection against virus attacks and ransomware attacks.

The inclusion of bandwidth management features would improve this product.

I would like to have an API for application development.

This solution is one hundred percent stable.

We are very satisfied with the technical support for this solution.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

Licensing fees for this solution are $3,500 USD, and there are no additional costs.

This is a good solution that I recommend, but there is room for more features to be included.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.