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

Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention vs Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Palo Alto Networks Advanced...
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Threat Stack Cloud Security...
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
24th
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (33rd), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (30th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (34th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is 7.5%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is 0.9%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
SC
SecOps program for us, as a smaller company, is amazing; they know what to look for
They could give a few more insights into security groups and recommendations on how to be more effective. That's getting more into the AWS environment, specifically. I'm not sure if that's Threat Stack's plan or not, but I would like them to help us be efficient about how we're setting up security groups. They could recommend separation of VPCs and the like - really dig into our architecture. I haven't seen a whole lot of that and I think that's something that, right off the bat, could have made us smarter. Even as part of the SecOps Program, that could be helpful; a quick analysis. They're analyzing our whole infrastructure and saying, "You have one VPC and that doesn't make a lot of sense, that should be multiple VPCs and here's why." The architecture of the servers in whatever cloud-hosting provider you're on could be helpful. Other than that, they should continue to expand on their notifications and on what's a vulnerability. They do a great job of that and we want them to continue to do that. It would be cool, since the agent is already deployed and they know about the server, they know the IP address, and they know what vulnerability is there, for them to test the vulnerability and see if they can actually exploit it. Or, once we patch it, they could double-check that it can't be. I don't know how hard that would be to build. Thinking on it off the top off my head, it could be a little challenging but it could also be highly interesting. It would also be great if we could test a couple of other features like hammering a server with 100 login attempts and see what happens. Real test scenarios could be really helpful. That is probably more something close to what they do with the SOC 2 audit or the report. But more visualization of that, being able to test things out on our infrastructure to make sure we can or can't hit this box could be interesting.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I find the malware protection very handy."
"The most valuable feature is its use of machine learning to detect potentially unknown threats."
"The most valuable features are that it's user-friendly, has interesting features, URL filtering, and threat prevention."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Threat Prevention for our company is the next generation firewall."
"It is a stable product."
"You can scale the product."
"It is scalable. It deploys easily with curl and yum."
"There has been a measurable decrease in the meantime to remediation... because we have so many different tech verticals already collated in one place, our ability to respond is drastically different than it used to be."
"An important feature of this solution is monitoring. Specifically, container monitoring."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"It has been quite helpful to have the daily alerts coming to my email, as well as the Sev 1 Alerts... We just went through a SOX audit and those were pivotal."
"The most valuable feature is the SecOps because they have our back and they help us with the reports... It's like having an extension of your team. And then, it grows with you."
"Threat Stack has connectivity."
"With Threat Stack, we quickly identified some AWS accounts which had services that would potentially be exposed and were able to remediate them prior to release of products."
 

Cons

"There is a potential drawback with the lack of support for the ICAP protocol."
"The technology firewall anomaly network could stand improvement."
"Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day."
"Mission learning techniques should continue to expand and detect unknown threats on the fly."
"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%."
"Sometimes when you want to group a set of ports, and communicate with Palo Alto, you cannot group TCP and UDP ports together. This needs to be adjusted."
"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."
"Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved."
"The compliance and governance need improvement."
"The solution’s ability to consume alerts and data in third-party tools (via APIs and export into S3 buckets) is moderate. They have some work to do in that area... The API does not mimic the features of the UI as far as reporting and pulling data out go. There's a big discrepancy there."
"They could give a few more insights into security groups and recommendations on how to be more effective. That's getting more into the AWS environment, specifically. I'm not sure if that's Threat Stack's plan or not, but I would like them to help us be efficient about how we're setting up security groups. They could recommend separation of VPCs and the like - really dig into our architecture. I haven't seen a whole lot of that and I think that's something that, right off the bat, could have made us smarter."
"The API - which has grown quite a bit, so we're still learning it and I can't say whether it still needs improvement - was an area that had been needing it."
"Some features do not work as expected."
"The user interface can be a little bit clunky at times... There's a lot of information that needs to be waded through, and the UI just isn't great."
"I would like further support of Windows endpoint agents or the introduction of support for Windows endpoint agents."
"The reports aren't very good. We've automated the report generation via the API and replaced almost all the reports that they generate for us using API calls instead."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's not too expensive."
"There is an initial, expensive investment but the return is good."
"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."
"If you want to have all of the good features then you have to pay extra for licensing."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve by having consistent pricing at system levels."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price."
"The pricing could be lower."
"It is a cost-effective choice versus other solutions on the market."
"What we're paying now is somewhere around $15 to $20 per agent per month, if I recall correctly. The other cost we have is SecOps."
"We find the licensing and pricing very easy to understand and a good value for the services provided."
"Pricing seems to be in line with the market structure. It's fine."
"I'm happy with the amount that we spend for the product that we get and the overall service that we get. It's not cheap, but I'm still happy with the spend."
"It is very expensive compared to some other products. The pricing is definitely high."
"It came in cheaper than Trend Micro when we purchased it a few years ago."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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?
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is quite competitive, offering extensive threat detection and prevention capabilities, though it is priced higher than some alternatives. I would rate ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Threat Stack, CSP,
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, SkiStar AB, TRI-AD, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
StatusPage.io, Walkbase, Spanning, DNAnexus, Jobcase, Nextcapital, Smartling, Veracode, 6sense
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention vs. Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.