We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool is managed from the cloud, because of which the maintenance is very low."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the insight it provides."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The product provides efficient email security for sending links and file attachments."
"You can use it to monitor third parties and ensure they are not under threat attacks. It is beneficial in the GRC model."
"Its user-friendliness is its most valuable aspect."
"Offers easy integration with a cloud-based infrastructure"
"The product's anti-spam and malware-scanning features are useful. We scan email attachments, documents, and malicious codes."
"The most valuable features are the User ID, URL filtering, and application filtering."
"It is very stable. It is fairly easy to use."
"A solid operating system with all the necessary data center security features."
"I have not actually called their support line, because we have a direct contact to a senior engineer in the company for any issues that we handle with them. I will say they are very responsive, and they do give you the information you need when you need it."
"The most valuable feature is the Posture Assessment."
"AWS has improved our agility to apply firewall rules. It has reduced the amount of time that it takes to apply firewall rules because everything is based in the cloud."
"Centralized management is valuable because it allows us to configure settings in one location and apply them across all three locations."
"Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is very easy to use."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the pricing structure and make it more affordable."
"The price point is something they can improve slightly for those who don't have an M 365 E5."
"Technical support could be a bit better."
"The product's dashboard and incident reports functionality needs enhancement."
"The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"A stable licensing model is absent"
"The tool's onboarding of users that use on-premise or hybrid environments needs to be improved."
"There could be AI functionality included for features like reporting and dashboard preparation."
"The solution needs to improve its visibility. It's not straightforward to use. Understanding the policies, authorizations, and initializing features requires careful review. The product needs to offer proper training."
"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 product could be better in terms of performance than one of its competitors."
"The product needs improvement in their Secure Access Service Edge."
"Palo Alto should update their documentation to make it more readable and provide easier-to-follow instructions through videos."
"With Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, it is hard for me to manage its network configuration part."
"The current licensing model can be a sore point as we're paying for features we're not fully utilizing."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
More Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence is ranked 14th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 27 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 11th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 53 reviews. Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence is rated 8.4, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence writes "A tool that offers endpoint protection with low maintenance costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, STAXX, Cisco Threat Grid, VirusTotal and ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP), whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.