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 SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS)
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
67
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
6.9
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) category, the mindshare of Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) is 4.2%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is 7.5%, down from 8.1% 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 most valuable feature is its IPS ability. You are able to balance security and connectivity."
"The threat detection and prevention feature is particularly important for us."
"I like Firepower's automation, and the security intelligence is a powerful feature."
"The solution is stable. This is one of the good things in Firepower. Especially if we use ESE with it."
"The thing about this solution that I like the most is that it's intuitive."
"Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) is quite powerful for threat detection and includes botnet detection."
"The initial setup wasn't complex or complicated."
"We like the Cisco product, the concept, and the tech intelligence."
"Edge protection is a valuable feature."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks."
"The application control and vulnerability protection are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is its use of machine learning to detect potentially unknown threats."
"It's very easy to use and configure. What is nice about Palo Alto is that even if you don't understand how to use it, you can just click on upload and upload everything that needs to be blocked."
"For those who want a next-gen firewall that's easy to configure and easy to operate, I think you should go for Palo Alto."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"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

"We would like to see improvements in the dashboard features."
"The file trajectory, the trace in contamination files, could be improved."
"I would like to see the sanctions lifted so we could use the full solution and have the speed increased."
"My opinion is that this solution should improve the pricing."
"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."
"The GUI could be improved. The pain point is really only focused toward the security engineer who configures it and the operation engineer who manages it."
"Cisco NGIPS could improve its ability to do SSL inspections. Sometimes the ability to do SSL inspection is not scalable and you might not be able to get the installment required if you don't size the right hardware."
"We would like to see some improvement in the configuration process for this solution, as it is currently quite complex."
"Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day."
"There is a potential drawback with the lack of support for the ICAP protocol."
"The organization mail security solutions could be improved. There is no mail security solution available."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the only thing I don't like is the support."
"The installation was complicated."
"I think they can use some improvement on FID."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The weakness of Cisco Firepower is the cost. Some of the customers see it as very expensive."
"It is highly priced but competitive regarding features and support services."
"It is expensive. It has separate licensing for all the features, and every feature set seems to require another license. Licensing is on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs besides the standard licensing fee."
"The licensing can be billed annually or in multi-year contracts such as three, four, or five years."
"Licenses for this product are available for either one, or three year terms."
"There is a license required to use Cisco NGIPS and it can be a one or three-year license."
"I would rate the pricing 4 out of 5."
"They are very expensive in some places and not reasonable at times for many customers. I have had customers choose another solution because of the high price."
"The price of the solution is higher than others on the market. A price reduction would be beneficial if it does not impact their database quality."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"The pricing has improved with the newer generation of their Firewalls, but the price could always be lower."
"It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price."
"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."
"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 Advanced Threat Prevention is quite competitive, offering extensive threat detection and prevention capabilities, though it is priced higher than some alternatives."
"The pricing could be lower."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions are best for your needs.
841,431 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
University
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Educational Organization
8%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
9%
 

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 needs improvement with Cisco NGIPS?
The dashboard is quite old compared to today's technology. We would like to see improvements in the dashboard features.
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?
The pricing is competitive, and with current campaigns and discounts, it provides an excellent device for a reasonable price.
 

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: March 2025.
841,431 professionals have used our research since 2012.