We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security and Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Cisco IOS Security is very robust and works very well."
"The VPN was valuable for us because more people are working from home. It has a lot of reporting and easy-to-use management tools."
"The most valuable features are DNS service and shell self-service within a network."
"Cisco IOS Security increases the overall security of our network, performs authentication, and provides level 15 access and privileges."
"The technical support is good."
"Cisco IOS Security is a mature product with extensive capabilities, serving as the base for the defense layer. It offers good network visibility, which helps in rapid response through the Rapid Threat Containment feature. Its deployment and configuration are straightforward."
"We use Cisco IOS Security mostly for routers to route off the firewall. It's a next-generation device."
"In Pakistan, we only use Cisco because they have good local support infrastructure. Huawei and Fortinet don't offer direct support in Pakistan."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is the market leader as far as security gateways and endpoint protection. Additionally, the threat database that is used is one of the best."
"We are currently using the URL filtering feature, which is the most popular."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks."
"The most valuable features are the simplicity, transparency, and overall ease of management."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"With the IP address flag, I was able to see that I was being hacked. The moment there was an interaction between somebody on my network and that IP, the solution was able to flag it, and we were able to protect ourselves."
"Most of the features of Palo Alto Threat Prevention are alright. I recommend features like content filtering, IP address, & intelligent firewalls. The reporting feature is very good."
"Everything has been okay with the solution. We are using all of the features."
"I think they should bring back remote VPN for users."
"The routers, don't have like long-term tendency features, or higher availability features available for the IOS. It could also use a better user interface."
"We faced significant challenges related to licensing issues, particularly when licenses expire."
"The configuration should be easier in the solution."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"There's a technology called SD-WAN that we would like to see. We are unable to handle multiple connections or to automatically load balance. I would like to have a feature that enables us to automatically prepare for load balancing."
"I would love it if it has a link-by-link feature, integration with Unified Threat Management (UTM), and load balancers. They haven't got any link-by-link feature right now, which can be a very attractive option. This link-by-link feature can also be made available for Cisco's UTM firewalls. The link-by-link feature is available in some of the other firewalls. Currently, integration with UTM is missing. Cisco IOS Security also doesn't have the load balancers and a few things that need to be done to get a good UTM firewall. Normally, other firewalls have UTM. As a next-generation firewall, it's good, but as a UTM, it has to do some work."
"The company needs to make its solution more affordable to make it more accessible to larger markets. Otherwise, it's seen as an enterprise-level solution that small or medium-sized organizations can't afford and therefore they won't even look at it."
"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%."
"The solution needs to improve its local technical support services. There is no premium support offered in our market."
"Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved."
"The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive."
"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."
"It's not so easy to set up a test environment, because it's not so easy to get the test license. The vendor only gives you 90 days for a test license; it's a tough license to get."
"The application’s pricing and dashboard need improvement. It could be user-friendly."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the only thing I don't like is the support."
More Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 10th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 47 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is ranked 7th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 24 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention writes "A good amount of granularity and advanced URL filtering capabilities". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Fortinet FortiOS, Meraki MX and Netgate pfSense, whereas Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is most compared with Check Point IPS, Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Arista NDR, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. See our Cisco IOS Security vs. Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention report.
See our list of best Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) vendors.
We monitor all Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
