Cisco Sourcefire SNORT vs WatchGuard Intrusion Prevention Service comparison

"The solution can be integrated with some network electors like Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco ISE, and Active Directory to provide the client with authentication certificates."

"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."

"I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."

"The tool's most valuable feature is threat detection, which is important because we have multiple layers not only in Cisco."

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

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

"It simplifies the configuration process by offering pre-defined base configurations, including security and connectivity settings."

"The solution is stable."

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

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

"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 alarm system is valuable."

"The cloud can be improved."

"We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco."

"With the next release, I would like to see some PBR, so that you can do the configuration with the features."

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

"While the alerts they offer are good, it could improve it in the sense that they should be more detailed to make the alerts more useful to us in general. Sometimes the solution will offer up false positives. Due to the fact that the alerts aren't detailed, we have to go dig around to see why is it being blocked. The solution would be infinitely better if there was just a bit more detail in the alert information and logging we receive."

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

"The customization of the rules can be simplified."

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

"The user interface and configuration can be improved."

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

"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."

"I would like to see faster automatation."

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

"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."

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

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

"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."

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