Cisco Sourcefire SNORT vs WatchGuard Intrusion Prevention Service comparison

"It has a huge rate of protection. It's has a low level of positives and a huge rate of threat protection. It's easy to deploy and easy to implement. It has an incredible price rate compared to similar solutions."

"The most valuable features of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT are the dashboard for monitoring events."

"It is quite an intelligent product."

"Solid intrusion detection and prevention that scales easily in very large environments."

"The whole solution is very good, and stable."

"In general, the features are all great. However, if I need to take hardware for ASA, because they need to upgrade to Firepower, we want to create rules. For that, most of the time we go to the command line. Right now Firepower is working really hard on the grid. You can apply all those rules to the grid. Even if you want to monitor the logs, for example, the activity will tell you which particular user has been blocked because of that rule. Firepower's monitoring interface is very good, because you can see each and every piece. ASA also had it, but there you needed to type the command and be under the server to see all that stuff. In Firepower you have the possibility to go directly to the firewall. The way the monitoring is displayed is also very nice. The feature I appreciate most in Firepower is actually the grid. The grid has worked very well."

"Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is easy to configure and the reporting is great. It's also very user-friendly."

"The solution is stable."

"The alarm system is valuable."

"It works right out of the box. You just have to enable it and you can start working."

"The initial setup was straightforward and, because we only need intrusion detection and prevention, we needed only about four hours to deploy it."

"The VPN and the filtering features are the most valuable. Its VPN is very strong, and its services are very nice. The main problem in India is the service. There are not enough Check Point and Fortinet Firewall services, but for this product, the service is very good."

"The most important feature of this solution is the SLAs."

"The pricing needs to be improved. We have lots of low-budget clients around us. Budget constraints are always a deterrent in our market."

"I want to see a better dashboard for the product. The dashboard can be a bit modified or enhanced."

"There are problems setting up VPNs for some regions."

"The implementation could be a bit easier."

"Integration with other components — even Cisco's own products — can be enhanced to improve administrative experience."

"I would like to have analytics included in the suite."

"The customization of the rules can be simplified."

"Performance needs improvement."

"I would like to see faster automatation."

"Regarding technical support, they could use more engineers."

"The user interface and configuration can be improved."

"Multi properties could be added to the solution in the future to make it better."

"Its graphical user interface could be improved because not everybody is technical. There is a lack of knowledge, and they can give some training for this solution."

"Licensing for this solution is paid on a yearly basis."

"The cost is per port and can be expensive but it does include training and support for three years."

"If one is an extremely expensive product, and ten is cheap, I rate the tool's price as a five."

"I don't know the exact amount, but most of the time when I go to a company with a proposition, they will say, "This thing that you are selling is good, but it's expensive. Why don't you propose something like FortiGate, Check Point, or Palo Alto?" Cisco device are expensive compared to other devices."

"We have a three-year license for this solution."

"The price of WatchGuard Intrusion Prevention Service is pretty reasonable compared to similar solutions."

"The price of the solution is not expensive, it is less than FortiGate."

"It is not expensive. Other products like Fortinet and Check Point are of the same price."