We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The CLI is robust and powerful, enabling rapid, consistent changes via SSH."
"The IPsec tunnels are very easily created, and quite interoperable with devices from other vendors."
"The email protection and VPN features are the most valuable."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the rules and quality of service."
"It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"Secure, user-friendly, stable, and scalable network security solution. Installation is straightforward."
"It is a comprehensive suite and complete package."
"The ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager) which is the graphical user interface, works out, and Cisco keeps it current."
"It is one of the fastest solutions, if not the fastest, in the security technology space. This gives us peace of mind knowing that as soon as a new attack comes online that we will be protected in short order. From that perspective, no one really comes close now to Firepower, which is hugely valuable to us from an upcoming new attack prevention perspective."
"The firewall and policy side are easy to use."
"I like the user interface because the navigation is very easy, straightforward on your left side pane you have all the sites that you need to browse. Unlike any other firewalls, it's pretty straightforward."
"I think Cisco ASA Firewall is the most stable firewall solution."
"We chose Cisco because it had the full package that we were looking for."
"The user interface, the UI, is excellent on the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the view into the application."
"The MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"We see ROI in the sense that we don't have to react because it stops anything from hurting the network. We can stop it before we have a bigger mess to clean up."
"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"The installation phase was easy."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"Before FireEye, most of the times that an incident would happen nobody would be able to find out where or why the incident occurred and that the system is compromised. FireEye is a better product because if the incident already happened I know that the breach is there and that the system is compromised so we can take appropriate action to prevent anything from happening."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"The product does need better support in the cloud environment. It's not exactly cloud-native right now."
"The user interface could be improved."
"The support costs and licensing are sometimes so expensive."
"It's my understanding that more of the current generation features could be brought in. There could be more integration with EDRs, for example."
"MTBF: Hardware failure is more common when compared to SonicWall or Cisco ASA."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"Some of the software stability could improve."
"I believe that the current feature set of the device is very good and the only thing that Cisco should work on is improving the user experience with the device."
"It seems very clunky and slow. I would like to be able to tune it to be a more efficient product."
"It can probably provide a holistic view of different appliances because many customers do not have only one brand, besides the traditional SNMP protocols, to cover all their devices. There are some specific requirements in terms of configurations or actions that sometimes have to be done in a very manual way because of the different versions or brands in a customer's infrastructure. It could also have some additional analytics capabilities. It has some very interesting ways to monitor the traffic and identify false positives from the architecture and the environment. It would be good if there is a way to patch with some other industry-specific solutions and synchronize some of the information, such as what other customers experience in their operations and probably share some additional information that could be leveraged or shared among the industry. Such information would be something interesting to see. It could have AI capabilities related to how the appliances could benefit from learning the current environment and different exposures."
"I would like to see them add more next-generation features so that you don't need a lot of appliances to do just one task. It should be a single solution."
"The cost is very high. Most organizations cannot afford it."
"The initial setup was complex."
"There should be more integration with Microsoft Identity."
"The only con that I have really seen with it is the reporting structure. FirePOWER is good. It has been a great help because, before that, it was not good at all."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
"Cybersecurity posture has room for improvement."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
"FireEye Network Security should have better integration with other vendors' firewalls or proxies, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet. Files that are being submitted should happen through the API or automatically."
"The product's integration capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The problem with FireEye is that they don't allow VM or sandbox customization. The user doesn't have control of the VMs that are inside the box. It comes from the vendor as-is. Some users like to have control of it. Like what type of Windows and what type of applications and they have zero control over this."
"Based on what we deployed, they should emphasize the application filtering and the web center. We need to look deeper into the SSM inspection. If we get the full solution with that module, we don't need to get the SSM database from another supplier."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall writes "Highlights and helps us catch Zero-day vulnerabilities traveling across our network". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, Vectra AI and Netgate pfSense.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.