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

Palo Alto Networks WildFire vs Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Palo Alto Networks WildFire
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
67
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Proofpoint Targeted Attack ...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
26th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is 12.7%, up from 11.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection is 2.1%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

Mario Lacroix - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides seamless automation functionality and has a straightforward setup process
The platform's most valuable feature is its seamless automation within the broader Palo Alto ecosystem. Its ability to function autonomously, with automatic updates and integration with tools like Panorama, significantly reduces manual intervention. Additionally, its threat detection capabilities allow us to respond quickly to potential incidents, and the system is self-sufficient, managing itself once configured.
KC
Dynamic runtime engine and good protection, but needs better support and a single console
We have two to three issues per month. We contact Proofpoint's customer support for these issues. I am a major point of contact for support. If I am not able to resolve an issue, we will be reaching out to them. Proofpoint can take a couple of days to get back. I also deal with other applications from Okta and Microsoft, and we get the support within a couple of hours. There is a lot of difference between a couple of hours and a couple of days. So, Proofpoint's support should be improved. Okta and Microsoft are also able to do a Zoom or video call, but Proofpoint provides support only through email communication. Only if you request, it would be a Zoom or video session.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature for us is the VPN."
"They have many different options with Palo Alto WildFire and the set-up is quick. If you have all the details in hand, it does not take more than 15 minutes to deploy a firewall."
"High availability with active-active and active-passive modes."
"For example, if a security Intel threat talks about an IOC. We can then go to our MSP and say, "Is there a signature for this particular type of malware that just came out?" And if they'll say yes, then we'll say, "Okay. Does it apply to these firewalls? And have we seen any hits on it?" There's absolutely value in it."
"The most valuable features of the solution are user-friendliness, price, good security, and cloud-related options."
"I love the idea of Palo Alto Networks WildFire. It's more geared toward preventing malware. If someone's laptop or phone is malware-infected, the tool prevents it from uploading valuable corporate data outside the corporate network. That's what I love about Palo Alto Networks WildFire. It stops malware in its tracks."
"WildFire has default licenses for threat prevention. It updates its cloud-based database in real-time, and its dedicated team analyzes threats to provide remediation and prevention measures."
"The way that the solution quickly updates to adjust to threats is the solution's most valuable aspect. When there's a security attack, within five minutes, all Wildfire subscribers have access to updates so that all systems will be safe. Its threat prevention is way better than other vendor products."
"It has a dynamic runtime engine, which gives it an advantage over Prisma that has a static engine. In Prisma, we have to do additional malware analysis, which is not required in Proofpoint."
 

Cons

"The system uptime data is unavailable"
"The only complaint that we receive from our customers is in regards to the price."
"The automation and responsiveness need improvement."
"Any enhancements should likely be focused on the firewall appliance to further strengthen overall security capabilities, such as refining app and user identity features."
"The GUI is better in 8.0, but I still feel it lacks the fast response most of us desire. Logs are much quicker."
"Improving detection on non-Windows formats would be beneficial as there are many samples, such as Linux or ransomware for macOS."
"The product fails to offer protection when dealing with high-severity vulnerabilities, making it an area of concern where improvements are required."
"In the future, I would like to see more automation in the reporting."
"We are using the TRAP console that has a Linux-based UI, which is not user-friendly. The TAP console looks very advanced. Currently, we are maintaining three different consoles, and it is sometimes hard to switch between them or try to grab the data."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the Palo Alto Networks WildFire license is expensive. When it came time to renew the solution the price doubled."
"Palo Alto Networks solutions are typically on the higher end of pricing, but considering the value and integration with our existing infrastructure, it is worth the investment."
"The price could be better."
"The pricing is OK, it is not too expensive."
"I use Palo Alto Networks WildFire's free version."
"The solution is overpriced."
"We pay between $3,000 and $4,000 CAD ($2,200 - $3,000 USD) per year to maintain this solution."
"WildFire is a little bit pricey. Sometimes it's difficult to sell it to customers at the current price."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user206346 - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 11, 2015
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto Networks
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto: Management Goodies You often have comparisons of both firewalls concerning security components. Of course, a firewall must block attacks, scan for viruses, build VPNs, etc. However, in this post I am discussing the advantages and disadvantages from both vendors concerning…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall compare with Palo Alto Networks Wildfire?
The Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is a very powerful and very complex piece of anti-viral software. When one considers that fact, it is all the more impressive that the setup is a fairly straightf...
Which is better - Wildfire or FortiGate?
FortiGate has a lot going for it and I consider it to be the best, most user-friendly firewall out there. What I like the most about it is that it has an attractive web dashboard with very easy nav...
How does Cisco ASA Firewall compare with Palo Alto's WildFire?
When looking to change our ASA Firewall, we looked into Palo Alto’s WildFire. It works especially in preventing advanced malware and zero-day exploits with real-time intelligence. The sandbox featu...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Targeted Attack Protection
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Novamedia, Nexon Asia Pacific, Lenovo, Samsonite, IOOF, Sinogrid, SanDisk Corporation
Brinker Capital
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.