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)
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Palo Alto Networks Advanced...
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
6th
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 April 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 7.4%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
 

Featured Reviews

Yosevan Sinaga Sinaga - PeerSpot reviewer
Effectively identifies malicious behavior while future automation and AI advancements hold potential
Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) ( /products/cisco-secure-ips-ngips-reviews ) is quite powerful for threat detection and includes botnet detection. It effectively blocks unwanted software, hashes, and suspicious behaviors. The tool is easy to integrate with other IT security solutions due to similar protocols. The system offers effective threat detection features, although automation capabilities are not yet fully utilized.
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

"I like the security solutions from Cisco."
"The URL filtering feature and the new locations feature are both valuable additions to the solution."
"The solution gives us a lot of visibility into our security."
"I like Firepower's automation, and the security intelligence is a powerful feature."
"Its ease of use and its ability to block and allow ports in and out of our organization are the most valuable features. It works very well. It gives us all the information that we need."
"The solution is stable. This is one of the good things in Firepower. Especially if we use ESE with it."
"Ir's signature-based. We are also using the anomaly baseline formation, where it links the network, then anything that goes away from the norm is also flagged. Those are the two most valuable features."
"The tracking intelligence feature is very good. This solution provides us with the opportunity to detect threats in real-time."
"The stability of Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is good."
"Most of the features of Palo Alto Threat Prevention are alright. I recommend features like content filtering, IP address, & intelligent firewalls. The reporting feature is very good."
"I like the solution's interface."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks."
"It effectively prevents malware, ransomware, and other attacks."
"The most valuable feature is its use of machine learning to detect potentially unknown threats."
"The sandboxing tools offer great prevention for cloud feeds."
"With the IP address flag, I was able to see that I was being hacked. The moment there was an interaction between somebody on my network and that IP, the solution was able to flag it, and we were able to protect ourselves."
 

Cons

"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 an option to search through the logs to be added to this solution."
"There is room for improvement in the policy documentation."
"The stability of the user console and some features could be easier to access."
"Customer support needs improvement."
"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."
"I think the part of IPS and everything else needs to be better equated to the real needs or current needs of the business compared to the other manufacturer, because it is not straightforward, a way to configure it compared to the other competitors."
"I would rate Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) six out of ten. The lack of automation and AI capabilities affects the rating."
"The price of licenses should be lowered to make it less costly to scale our solution."
"Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day."
"We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection."
"The solution needs to improve its local technical support services. There is no premium support offered in our market."
"Right now we are focusing on email. If Palo Alto can increase the features related to email filtering and the new malware, it would help us protect our systems."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the only thing I don't like is the support."
"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 installation was complicated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the pricing four out of 10."
"We buy the licensing on a yearly basis, when we renew our contract. It is around $14,000."
"This is a very affordable product."
"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."
"We pay for the IPS license to use this solution."
"Pricing depends on negotiation with the vendor, although I can say that it is moderate."
"It could be less expensive."
"There is a license required to use Cisco NGIPS and it can be a one or three-year license."
"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."
"It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price."
"The pricing has improved with the newer generation of their Firewalls, but the price could always be lower."
"It's not too expensive."
"If you want to have all of the good features then you have to pay extra for licensing."
"There is an initial, expensive investment but the return is good."
"Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is quite competitive, offering extensive threat detection and prevention capabilities, though it is priced higher than some alternatives."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve by having consistent pricing at system levels."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions are best for your needs.
847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
University
14%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
10%
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco NGIPS?
Cisco is one of the top brands known for cost-effectiveness, making it worth the money. It's cheaper to integrate with existing IT security solutions compared to other expensive brands with subscri...
What needs improvement with Cisco NGIPS?
In the future, I hope to see automation features like automatic blocking and rule creation. Additionally, incorporating AI capabilities would enhance its functionality.
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: April 2025.
847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.