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

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series vs Trellix Network Detection and Response comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
10th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
Firewalls (12th)
Trellix Network Detection a...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
15th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Network Detection and Response (NDR) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is 1.3%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Network Detection and Response is 5.1%, down from 6.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

AshwaniTyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Sep 16, 2024
Advanced protection and good integration capabilities with good reliability
We use Palo Alto Networks VM-Series to offer services to our customers as a managed security service provider. We provide solutions and services to our customers across the globe. For example, if I want to host a firewall in the cloud or somewhere where the physical appliance is not a possibility…
BiswabhanuPanda - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 4, 2024
Offers in-depth investigation capabilities, integrates well and smoothly transitioned from a lower-capacity appliance to a higher one
The in-depth investigation capabilities are a major advantage. When the system flags something as malicious, it provides a packet capture of that activity within the environment. That helps my team quickly identify additional context that most other tools wouldn't offer – like source IP or base64 encoded data. We can also see DNS requests and other details that aren't readily available in solutions like Check Point or others that we've tried. The detection itself is solid, and their sandboxing is powerful. There's a learning curve – you need a strong grasp of OS-level changes, process forking, registry changes, and the potential impact of those. But with that knowledge, the level of information Trellix provides is far greater than what we've seen elsewhere. The real-time response capability of Trellix has been quite effective, although it's not very fast. The key is this solution's concept of 'preference zero.' They don't immediately act on a zero-day. For example, the solution has seen a piece of malware for the first time. It'll let it in, then do sandboxing. Maybe after four or five minutes, it identifies that specific file's DNX Secure Store as malicious. At that point, they update the static analysis engine, and it gets detected if anything else tries to download the same file. There is that initial 'preference zero' concept, like with Panda. You may not hold traffic in the network. That's standard in the industry; we don't do much about it. To address that, we also have endpoint solutions. We use SentinelOne in our environment, which helps us identify threats like Western Bureaus and others.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The solution strengthens our IT posture."
"They now know the details about their network traffic that they did not know before: Applications that they are using and some application they did not know they were using."
"It is an easy-to-scale product."
"In Palo Alto the most important feature is the App-ID."
"The VM series has an advantage over the physical version because we are able to change the sources that the machine has, such as the amount of available RAM."
"It scales linearly with load and no issues."
"You already can scale it if you put it in Auto Scaling groups. If you put it in a load balancer, it should already be able to scale."
"Before FireEye, most of the times that an incident would happen nobody would be able to find out where or why the incident occurred and that the system is compromised. FireEye is a better product because if the incident already happened I know that the breach is there and that the system is compromised so we can take appropriate action to prevent anything from happening."
"The scalability has not been a problem. We have deployed the product in very high bandwidth networks. We have never had a problem with the FireEye product causing latency issues within our networks."
"The installation phase was easy."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"We wanted to cross-reference that activity with the network traffic just to be sure there was no lateral movement. With Trellix, we easily confirmed that there was no lateral network involvement and that nothing else was infected. It helped us correlate the events and feel confident in our containment."
"The server appliance is good."
 

Cons

"It is not very easy to scale up the solution."
"In the next release, I would like to see better integration of multi-factor authentication vendors."
"There are some delays that I have observed when my company communicates with Palo Alto's support engineers."
"The scalability could be improved further."
"They made only a halfhearted attempt to put in DLP (Data Loss Prevention)."
"It would be good if the common features work consistently in physical and virtual environments. There was an integration issue in the virtual deployment where it didn't report the interface counters, and we had to upgrade to the latest version, whereas the same thing has been working in the physical deployment for ages now. It seems that it was because of Azure. We were using VMware before, and we didn't have any such issues. We do see such small issues where we expect things to work, but they don't because of some incompatibilities. There also seems to be a limitation on how to do high availability in a virtualized environment. All features should be consistently available in physical and virtual environments. It is not always easy to integrate Palo Alto in the network management system. We would like to be able to compare two network management systems. They can maybe allow monitoring an interface through the GUI to create a reference or do a baseline check about whether your network monitoring system is actually giving you the correct traffic figures. You need traffic figures to be able to recognize the trends and plan the capacity."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
"With Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, it is hard for me to manage its network configuration part."
"FireEye Network Security should have better integration with other vendors' firewalls or proxies, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet. Files that are being submitted should happen through the API or automatically."
"The solution's support needs to improve their support."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
"I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet."
"It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."
"As far as future inclusions, it would be useful to display more threat intelligence, such as the actual area of the threat and the origin of the web crawling (Tor and Dark Web)."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is a little bit of crazy if you compare it to Vanguard, Sophos, or even Cisco. The newest version of Cisco, the Next-Generation Firewall of Cisco, is less expensive than Palo Alto. It is more comparable to Check Point."
"I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series pricing an eight out of ten."
"The pricing for Palo Alto is quite high compared to FortiGate, which is more affordable. I don't have the exact figures as my manager handles that, but from my research, Palo Alto's licensing costs are significantly higher."
"Palo Alto can be as much as two times the price of competing products that have twice the capabilities."
"​The licensing is pretty much like everyone else."
"The product is cheaper than the on-premise version."
"Based on the customer budget, they can choose from 12-month, 36-month, or 60-month licensing models."
"The pricing and licensing are reasonable."
"Its price is a bit high. A small customer cannot buy it. Its licensing is on a yearly basis."
"We're partners with Cisco so we get a reasonable price. It's cheaper than Palo Alto in terms of licensing."
"Because of what the FireEye product does, it has significantly decreased our mean time in being able to identify and detect malicious threats. The company that I work with is a very mature organization, and we have seen the meantime to analysis decrease by at least tenfold."
"The pricing is fair, a little expensive, but fair. We've evaluated other products, and they're similarly priced."
"The user fee is not as high but the maintenance fee is expensive."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The tool is a bit pricey."
"FireEye is comparable to other products, such as HX, but seems expensive. It may cause us to look at other products in the market."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Features comparison between Palo Alto and Fortinet firewalls
In the best tradition of these questions, Feature-wise both are quite similar, but each has things it's better at, it kind of depends what you value most. PA is good at app control, web filtering a...
How does Azure Firewall compare with Palo Alto Networks VM Series?
Both products are very stable and easily scalable. The setup of Azure Firewall is easy and very user-friendly and the overall cost is reasonable. Azure Firewall offers a solid threat awareness, can...
What do you like most about FireEye Network Security?
We wanted to cross-reference that activity with the network traffic just to be sure there was no lateral movement. With Trellix, we easily confirmed that there was no lateral network involvement an...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FireEye Network Security?
The pricing is fair, a little expensive, but fair. We've evaluated other products, and they're similarly priced. It's a bit on the expensive side, but we don't want to compromise with cheap, less r...
What needs improvement with FireEye Network Security?
The solution's support needs to improve their support.
 

Also Known As

No data available
FireEye Network Security, FireEye
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Warren Rogers Associates
FFRDC, Finansbank, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Investis, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Bank of Thailand, City of Miramar, Citizens National Bank, D-Wave Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks VM-Series vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.