We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform 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."It's very easy to use and configure. What is nice about Palo Alto is that even if you don't understand how to use it, you can just click on upload and upload everything that needs to be blocked."
"We are currently using the URL filtering feature, which is the most popular."
"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."
"It is a stable product."
"It's a monster, it's got so many beautiful features. We do deal with other firewalls and we've got a better idea of what other firewalls' capabilities are, any comparison with the Palo Alto I liked the quality of service on the applications that you can control the amount of bandwidth an application is allowed to consume. The best feature is the quality of the application quality of service."
"I find the malware protection very handy."
"The application control and vulnerability protection are the most valuable features."
"The stability of Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is good."
"Every other security tool we've looked is good at containers, or at Kubernetes, is good at AWS, or at instance monitoring. But nobody is good at tying all of those things together, and that's really where Threat Stack shines."
"It is scalable. It deploys easily with curl and yum."
"It has been quite helpful to have the daily alerts coming to my email, as well as the Sev 1 Alerts... We just went through a SOX audit and those were pivotal."
"Threat Stack has connectivity."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"The rules are really great. They give us more visibility and control over what's being triggered. There's a large set of rules that come out-of-the-box. We can customize them and we can create our own rules based on the traffic patterns that we see."
"The most valuable feature is the SecOps because they have our back and they help us with the reports... It's like having an extension of your team. And then, it grows with you."
"We're using it on container to see when activity involving executables happens, and that's great."
"The initial setup is complex."
"We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection."
"The application’s pricing and dashboard need improvement. It could be user-friendly."
"Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve the commercial offing. Other solutions, such as Fortinet provide better commercial features."
"Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day."
"Mission learning techniques should continue to expand and detect unknown threats on the fly."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the only thing I don't like is the support."
"The documentation needs to be improved. I need better information about how to configure it and what the best practices are."
"Some features do not work as expected."
"The compliance and governance need improvement."
"They could give a few more insights into security groups and recommendations on how to be more effective. That's getting more into the AWS environment, specifically. I'm not sure if that's Threat Stack's plan or not, but I would like them to help us be efficient about how we're setting up security groups. They could recommend separation of VPCs and the like - really dig into our architecture. I haven't seen a whole lot of that and I think that's something that, right off the bat, could have made us smarter."
"The reports aren't very good. We've automated the report generation via the API and replaced almost all the reports that they generate for us using API calls instead."
"It shoots back a lot of alerts."
"The user interface can be a little bit clunky at times... There's a lot of information that needs to be waded through, and the UI just isn't great."
"The API - which has grown quite a bit, so we're still learning it and I can't say whether it still needs improvement - was an area that had been needing it."
"I would like further support of Windows endpoint agents or the introduction of support for Windows endpoint agents."
More Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is ranked 7th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 24 reviews while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is ranked 27th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS). Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is rated 8.8, while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention writes "A good amount of granularity and advanced URL filtering capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform writes "SecOps program for us, as a smaller company, is amazing; they know what to look for". 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, whereas Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Darktrace, AWS GuardDuty, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, Qualys VMDR and Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP. See our Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention vs. Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform 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.