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

Cisco Secure Network Analytics vs Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure Network Analytics
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
59
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (24th), Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) (3rd), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (5th), Cisco Security Portfolio (3rd)
Palo Alto Networks Advanced...
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Network Security Systems solutions, they serve different purposes. Cisco Secure Network Analytics is designed for Network Monitoring Software and holds a mindshare of 1.5%, down 1.7% compared to last year.
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, on the other hand, focuses on Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS), holds 7.0% mindshare, down 8.3% since last year.
Network Monitoring Software
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
 

Featured Reviews

Rainier S. - PeerSpot reviewer
You are able to drill down into a center's utilization, then create reports based on it
In the last year or two, we have been working with our Cisco NAS engineers to improve our security posturing. It is more our being proactive rather than reactive. While Stealthwatch and Lancope have this ability to look inside and give you visibility (a great feature), follow-up is the rule. We would like filters that you can put into place to tap onto certain types of behaviors, alerts out, and/or hopefully a block. This is sort of what we are looking for. I might be speaking too early, because we are not down this path yet. We know the feature set is there, we just do not know yet how to achieve it. That is proactive rather than more reactive. For Lancope Stealthwatch, we would like to see it more on the ASA Firewall platform. While this might already be available, this is more a failing of Cisco to inform us if it is there. For example: * Are we on the right or wrong version of the code? * What does the code look like? * Are we are really looking at firewalls? Or is it more about the foundation and route switches that we are seeing? It is about visibility.
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

"There are already many functionalities, so I don't think there is anything to improve."
"It has been pretty stable since we deployed it, and everything seems to be working fine."
"The most valuable feature is NetFlow. The beginning of any security investigation starts with NetFlow data."
"Able to drill down into a center's utilization, then create reports based on it."
"Cisco Stealthwatch has predefined alerts for different types of security issues that might happen in the network. Whether it's PCs or servers that are used for botnets or Bitcoin mining we receive the alerts automatically. This functionality is what we receive from the solution out of the box."
"Provides easily identifiable anomalies that you can't see with signature detections."
"The ability to send data flow from other places and have them all in one place is very valuable for us."
"I value the feature which enables me to detect devices talking to suspect IPs."
"The most valuable features are that it's user-friendly, has interesting features, URL filtering, and threat prevention."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"The stability of Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is good."
"The most valuable feature is its use of machine learning to detect potentially unknown threats."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is the market leader as far as security gateways and endpoint protection. Additionally, the threat database that is used is one of the best."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"It is time-consuming to set it up and understand how the tool works."
"It hasn't really improved our direct detection rate but it has definitely reduced our incident response time as we wouldn't have been able to detect threats or immediate risks without this solution."
"The ability to be natively integrated into Port Aggregator would be beneficial because it would reduce just one more component that's needed in order to have that type of view."
"The visualization could be improved, the GUI is not the best."
"The configuration of the solution was quite complex."
"The initial setup was straightforward but required a lot of data entry, to begin with building out the server types and network types."
"I think the interface is a little lacking. The interface seems like it just needs to be modernized. It's been the same interface now, ever since I've seen it probably four years ago."
"There could be better integration on the programming side, which uses Python. StealthWatch could provide a template for Python to manage the switches. For example, it would be nice if StealthWatch bounced a port automatically it detected something anomalous."
"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%."
"There is a potential drawback with the lack of support for the ICAP protocol."
"I think they can use some improvement on FID."
"Mission learning techniques should continue to expand and detect unknown threats on the fly."
"The solution needs to improve its local technical support services. There is no premium support offered in our market."
"We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection."
"The pricing has improved with the newer generation of their Firewalls, but the price could always be lower. In comparison with other solutions, I believe they're quite competitive."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"One of the things which bugs me about Lancope is the licensing. We understand how licensing works. Our problem is when we bought and purchased most of these Lancope devices, we did so with our sister company. Somewhere within the purchase and distribution, licensing got mixed up. That is all on Cisco, and it is their responsibility. They allotted some of our sister company's equipment to us, and some of our equipment to them. To date, they have never been able to fix it."
"The yearly licensing cost is about $50,000."
"It is worth the cost."
"The tool is not cheaply priced."
"Today, we are part of the big Cisco ELA, and it is a la carte. We can get orders for whatever we want. At the end of the day, we have to pay for it in one big expense, but that is fine. We are okay with that."
"Pricing is much higher compared to other solutions."
"The solution is expensive. It costs several hundred thousand dollars per year (depending on how many flows you are collecting)."
"The licensing costs are outrageous."
"It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price."
"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."
"The pricing could be lower."
"The pricing has improved with the newer generation of their Firewalls, but the price could always be lower."
"The product’s pricing is expensive for small companies."
"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."
"It's not too expensive."
"If you want to have all of the good features then you have to pay extra for licensing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
30%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Stealthwatch?
The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Network Analytics is the Threat Intelligence integration.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Stealthwatch?
The tool is not cheaply priced. In cybersecurity, you want an extra layer of security in your organization. Some sectors want NDR solutions, so you cannot deploy such tools everywhere, as they are ...
What needs improvement with Cisco Stealthwatch?
The expensive nature of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required.
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

Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco Stealthwatch Enterprise, Lancope StealthWatch
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edge Web Hosting, Telenor Norway, Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, Webster Financial Corporation, Westinghouse Electric, VMware, TIAA-CREF
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, SkiStar AB, TRI-AD, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Network Analytics vs. Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.