We performed a comparison between Check Point IPS and Cisco NGIPS 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."The most valuable feature is that it protects us against hundreds of different attack vectors, like ransomware. The protection is always being triggered. People try to access websites that are categorized as malware, so when the users do a DNS request for the IP of those malware websites, the IPS Blade replaces the real IP of the website that is malware with a bogus IP. The user gets an IP that doesn't exist and when he tries to access, it won't work."
"Its event analysis and centralization features are very important for any organization."
"Check Point offers DDoS and endpoint protection called EDR or XDR, so it provides a holistic security architecture for any organization."
"IPS logs enable complete visibility and reporting through the smart console."
"Overall, it give me a lot of insight into my network that I didn't have before."
"There's less admin burden to detect these threats as Check Point IPS will do it all for you and suggest the best preventive actions to protect the network."
"The possibility of customizing the rules is great."
"I can generate reports for management automatically based on the threats of the last day/week/whatever is needed."
"We primarily use this solution as an application filter and for IPS."
"Its ease of use and its ability to block and allow ports in and out of our organization are the most valuable features. It works very well. It gives us all the information that we need."
"The most valuable features of Cisco NGIPS are protection and reporting."
"The Malware Detection, threat defense, sandboxing, VPN and mail security have all been valuable features of Cisco NGIPS."
"The most valuable feature is that it is able to detect any form of infiltration."
"The solution is stable. This is one of the good things in Firepower. Especially if we use ESE with it."
"The main advantages to Cisco are the scale, the integration, the training, and the possibility of finding somebody to work with."
"I like the security solutions from Cisco."
"After the R80 release, there are almost all feature sets available under IPS Configuration. However, further to this, adding a direct vulnerability scan based on ports and protocol for every zone (LAN, DMZ, or Outside) will make Check Point very different compared to other vendors on the market."
"There are a lot of false positives. I would like to see integration with some kind of network detection and response in order to make some automation on IPS configuration."
"In my opinion, the Check Point software engineers should works on the performance of the blade - when it is activated with the big number of the protections in place, the monitoring shows us the significant increase in the CPU utilization for the gateway appliances - up to 30 percents, even so we are cherry-picking only the profiles that we really needed."
"The pain point that I have with this solution is contacting technical support."
"Sometimes we had false positives where packages that were legitimate for us were blocked and we had to unblock them through exceptions."
"It would be good to update the public documentation of Check Point so that we can generate improvements and best practices based on the documentation."
"It is generally good, but improving the performance would be the one thing I'd take a look at right now."
"There is no standalone IPS appliance available."
"The GUI user interface could be improved and the login is not very user friendly."
"The file trajectory, the trace in contamination files, could be improved."
"The solution would be better if it offered customers more integrations and more signatures."
"Some Next-Generation Firewall solutions come with Intrusion Prevention. It would be nice if Cisco NGIPS included that."
"I think the part of IPS and everything else needs to be better equated to the real needs or current needs of the business compared to the other manufacturer, because it is not straightforward, a way to configure it compared to the other competitors."
"Cisco NGIPS could improve its ability to do SSL inspections. Sometimes the ability to do SSL inspection is not scalable and you might not be able to get the installment required if you don't size the right hardware."
"The stability of the user console and some features could be easier to access."
"There are some features not found in Firepower, like data loss prevention, and SSO, to have a connection between Cisco and Active Directory which was introduced on other products."
Check Point IPS is ranked 3rd in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 46 reviews while Cisco NGIPS is ranked 5th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 63 reviews. Check Point IPS is rated 8.6, while Cisco NGIPS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Check Point IPS writes "Great for detection and access with the capabilities of defining specific rules". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco NGIPS writes "Very effective for malware and signature-based anomalies but stability needs improvement". Check Point IPS is most compared with Darktrace, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System and Fortinet FortiGate IPS, whereas Cisco NGIPS is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Cisco Sourcefire SNORT and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System. See our Check Point IPS vs. Cisco NGIPS 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.