We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks WildFire and Symantec Advanced Threat Protection 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."Installing this product as a datacenter firewall for segregation and segmentation, and also configuring policies between zones has improved my organization."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks WildFire are the good URL and file analysis that uses artificial intelligence. It has different interfaces, such as rest, SMTP protocol, and HTTPS. The Security incidents and event management are very good. Additionally, there are many file types that are supported and there is no limit to the number of files it can handle simultaneously. It integrates well with SIEM solutions."
"The most valuable features are all of the security features in terms of protection and SSL and VPN."
"The most effective feature of WildFire for threat analysis is its collaboration with other security profiles on our Palo Alto firewall."
"The most valuable features of this solution are sandbox capabilities."
"Intuitive threat prevention and analysis solution, with a machine learning feature. Scalable, stable, and protects against zero-day threats."
"The solution has plenty of features."
"Detailed reporting on analysis of content. The inspections are easily applied to security policy profiles and profile groups, and may be assigned on a per-rule basis."
"It has certainly helped out our audit efforts because we each stay compliant in terms of various security standards."
"The Application Control code and the easy integration are valuable features."
"What I like most about Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is its notification capability."
"They manage to solve detection quite nicely. There is some rather elaborate detection compared to other providers."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"Endpoint to network protects the line."
"The most valuable feature is Click-time URL protection."
"The most valuable feature is NetFlow threat protection."
"They provide a medium level of technical support."
"I don't think it needs to improve anything, except maybe the speed to deploy the changes."
"There are more specialized solutions that compete with Wildfire. Therefore, they need to work on their machine learning and AI to be more competitive."
"The product's false positive logs could be more user-friendly to understand. They could provide examples of precious cases to learn."
"Management and web filtering can be improved. There should also be better reporting, particularly around web filtering."
"I think it would be nice for Palo Alto to work without the connection to the cloud. It is 100% powerful when connected to the cloud. But, if you disconnect from the cloud, you only get 40-50% power."
"The automation and responsiveness need improvement."
"The deployment model could be better."
"The security features need to be improved."
"An improvement could be made on the reporting because then it would be easier to collect information and submit it for compliance."
"Entire threat protection is not available for the advanced features."
"The support for new OSs and older OSs could be a little tighter. They need to be more upfront about what protection services they're going to provide on new OSs. I haven't seen the Windows 11 version out yet. It is either already released in Beta, or the Beta will be released soon. There could be a little bit more advanced updates on what they're doing to help protect Windows 11 environments. They can let us know in advance so that we know it is going to be protected. We can't roll out the new OS without putting end-point protection on it. So, they should tell us what is their support model for that, and what are they doing to protect Windows 11. They're not telling me, and that's a criticism. The same issue is applicable to all the other antivirus tools. It is not just Symantec; all of them have this problem."
"There are limits with respect to blocking files by hash value or blocking IP addresses, and these limits should be removed."
"The cloud platform needs to have improvement in terms of the user interface and the different capabilities it has available. It needs to match the other leading next-gen EDR products that are available in the market. That's the reason why we are stepping away from Symantec. Their cloud environment is just generally lacking in comparison to others."
"Not ideal for advanced threat protection."
"The support has dropped down to a five out of ten."
More Symantec Advanced Threat Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews while Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is ranked 20th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 14 reviews. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4, while Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Advanced Threat Protection writes "Provides end-to-end antivirus protection and has good stability ". Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Check Point SandBlast Network, Trellix Network Detection and Response, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Arbor DDoS. See our Palo Alto Networks WildFire vs. Symantec Advanced Threat Protection 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.