Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) vs Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS)
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Palo Alto Networks Advanced...
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) category, the mindshare of Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) is 4.3%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is 7.5%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
 

Featured Reviews

YoussefBoukari - PeerSpot reviewer
Very effective for malware and signature-based anomalies but stability needs improvement
Our company uses the solution for data functions in banking. It is a backend solution in the server center.  We analyze traffic and adapt configurations or customize policies to the environment of the IPS itself.  The solution very effectively provides malware protection and signature-based…
Carlos Bracamonte - PeerSpot reviewer
Robust, reliable, simple to install and good technical support
We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection. I'm not sure what the remaining threat protection features are off the top of my head. But beyond that, we use URL filtering. We have three approved cases for using external dynamic lists that are stored in a bucket repository. Then, for each URL site that needs to be whitelisted, we add it to the external dynamic list in order to gain access to this email. I would like Wildfire to be implemented. We use the equivalent in Cisco is the integration policies. We have the Wildfire but we are not currently implementing it. We don't have the license to use it, but we are not currently implementing it until we present the use cases that the company gives some value to and they approve the use of it.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The solution very effectively provides malware protection and signature-based anomaly detection."
"The integration with the Cisco portfolio is very helpful."
"This is a stable solution."
"In the virtual deployment, you have a couple of choices depending on your needs and how much bandwidth you have that needs to be inspected."
"The main advantages to Cisco are the scale, the integration, the training, and the possibility of finding somebody to work with."
"It has good intelligence. It does a great job at stopping threats."
"The most valuable feature would be the IPS is very important in Cisco Firepower because I can configure deep configuration in IPS and tuning."
"The sandboxing tools offer great prevention for cloud feeds."
"The most valuable features are the simplicity, transparency, and overall ease of management."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks."
"The most valuable features are that it's user-friendly, has interesting features, URL filtering, and threat prevention."
"We are currently using the URL filtering feature, which is the most popular."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"The user interface is a bit more professional than some free products."
"It's a monster, it's got so many beautiful features. We do deal with other firewalls and we've got a better idea of what other firewalls' capabilities are, any comparison with the Palo Alto I liked the quality of service on the applications that you can control the amount of bandwidth an application is allowed to consume. The best feature is the quality of the application quality of service."
 

Cons

"The price of Cisco NGIPS could improve."
"The solution should contain the sandbox features which we find in Check Point."
"The stability of the user console and some features could be easier to access."
"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I'd like to see some cloud management. Cisco maybe already has it, however, my company doesn't use it as cloud management."
"We don't like its licensing model. It has separate licensing for all the features. For instance, to get URL filtering, you need to buy another license. Every feature set seems to require another license. Unless you purchase them all upfront, you find some surprises and realize that you can't do that because you need another license. Its logging isn't quite as good as it used to be in our previous solution. We used to have Cisco ASA, and we could view the logs a lot easier than NGIPS (also known as Firepower). We saw real-time logging, but we don't see that as much in Firepower."
"More flexibility with the dashboards is needed because some of them are not fully developed."
"The price is a little high. It's hard to find solutions that are easy on the budget and strike a balance between affordability and 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."
"Sometimes when you want to group a set of ports, and communicate with Palo Alto, you cannot group TCP and UDP ports together. This needs to be adjusted."
"Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved."
"It's not so easy to set up a test environment, because it's not so easy to get the test license. The vendor only gives you 90 days for a test license; it's a tough license to get."
"The solution could benefit from improved AI analytics to predict potential attacks before they occur, similar to NDR systems."
"In Africa, the technical support is probably not as good as in Europe and the USA because it's a specific premium support, partner-enabled premium support and all of that. But it's really good, I don't really have any complaints, it's fairly good. I'll give them 80%."
"We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly."
"The cost of the license depends on the level of support that you have with Cisco."
"Cisco products are always expensive, but if you can afford the price then it's a great solution."
"Licensing fees for this solution are $3,500 USD, and there are no additional costs."
"Licenses for this product are available for either one, or three year terms."
"It is highly priced but competitive regarding features and support services."
"There is a license required to use Cisco NGIPS and it can be a one or three-year license."
"This is a very affordable product."
"The pricing could be lower."
"It's not too expensive."
"From one to ten, with one being the most expensive, I would rate the pricing of Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention a one out of ten. It is my understanding that Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is the most expensive one."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve by having consistent pricing at system levels."
"The pricing and the licensing are pretty competitive at this stage. As a reseller, I would like to see the price come down a little bit so I can compete better against other firewalls because we do that all the time."
"If you want to have all of the good features then you have to pay extra for licensing."
"The product’s pricing is expensive for small companies."
"The pricing has improved with the newer generation of their Firewalls, but the price could always be lower."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
University
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Educational Organization
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco NGIPS?
The product's initial setup phase was easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco NGIPS?
The pricing for Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) is quite high. They should consider revising the pricing strategies since there are other vendors in the market offering competitive pricing.
What needs improvement with Cisco NGIPS?
It's better to strengthen the AI feature of the IPS. Considering different attack vectors, using AI to understand the behavior or features of network-level intrusions and protecting against zero-da...
Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?
Arbor would be the best bid, apart from Arbor, Palo Alto and Fortinet have good solutions. As this is an ISP, I would prefer Arbor.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention?
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is quite competitive, offering extensive threat detection and prevention capabilities, though it is priced higher than some alternatives. I would rate ...
 

Also Known As

Sourcefire NGIPS, Firepower NGIPS
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

American Electric Power, Huntington Bank, Keycorp, Nationwide, Transunion, Marriott, Inova Health, Ford, Thomson Reuters, Dow Chemical, Equifax, Chevron, Walmart, Coca Cola
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, SkiStar AB, TRI-AD, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) vs. Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.