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."Fortinet offers the latest versions to cater to the needs of enterprises."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"The threat prevention is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"Security management tool that's easy to integrate and easy to work with. No issues found with its stability and scalability."
"Fortinet FortiGate is easy to use. Anyone can easily maintain it."
"We are very happy with the general bandwidth agility we have seen from one website to another website."
"The most valuable feature is the web filter."
"The ease of setting the solution up is a valuable aspect for us."
"I have experience with URL filtering, and it is very good for URL filtering. You can filter URLs based on the categories, and it does a good job. It can also do deep packet inspection."
"The technical support is excellent. I would rate it as 10 out of 10. When there has been an issue, we have had a good response from them."
"It's a flexible solution."
"Its Snort 3 IPS has better flexibility as far as being able to write rules. This gives me better granularity."
"The feature set is fine and is rarely a problem."
"The user interface is easy to navigate."
"The most valuable feature is zone segmentation, which we utilize through the Firepower management console."
"The clusters in data centers are great."
"Application categorization is the most valuable feature for us. Application filtering is very interesting because other products don't give you full application filtering capabilities."
"Its ability to find zero-day threats, malware and anything malicious has greatly improved my customer's organization, especially for protecting the users' browser."
"I also like its logging method. Its logging is very powerful and useful for forensic purposes. You can see the traffic or a specific activity or how something entered your network and where it went."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"The most valuable feature is MVX, which tests all of the files that have been received in an email."
"The solution can scale."
"Improved our systems and our customers' by providing better malware protection, defense against zero-day threats, and improved network security."
"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"The user interface could be improved to make it less confusing and easier to set up."
"Fortinet Fortigate could benefit by simplifying some of their processes."
"Fortinet FortiGate can be integrated with different platforms. They have integrations in place, but I can't say they're 100%."
"Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it."
"The UTM filtering needs improvement."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"The web-cache feature which was previously on the FortiGate device, but was deleted with the recent upgrade should be returned. It was a very valuable feature for us."
"The SSL VPN is, and always has been, painful to configure and the Java plugin does not guarantee a uniform deployment."
"The initial setup can be a bit complex for those unfamiliar with the solution."
"The GUI interface could be improved when compared to other solutions."
"It lacks management. For me, it still doesn't have a proper management tool or GUI for configuration, logging, and visualization. Its management is not that easy. It is also not very flexible and easy to configure. They used to have a product called CSM, but it is no longer being developed. FortiGate is better than this solution in terms of GUI, flexibility, and user-friendliness."
"Initial setup can be complex. It is complex. We have to set up ASA, SFR module, and FMC separately, which sometimes requires extensive troubleshooting, even for smaller issues."
"With regards to stability, we had a critical bug come out during our evaluation... not good."
"I would like to see them release a patch for ASAv with cross-platform FirePower integration."
"The reporting and other features are nice, but there is an issue with applying the configuration. That part needs some improvement."
"Technical packaging could be improved."
"There is a lot of room for Improvement in the offering, from cost to functionality. It is pretty straightforward to implement which is an advantage. However, it falls short in pricing, detection capabilities, and, most importantly, reporting and policy management."
"It is not a very secure product."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."
"It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 112 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 14th in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) with 5 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 "Includes multiple tools that help manage and troubleshoot, but needs SD-WAN for load balancing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Great sandboxing, good reliability, and helpful support". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Juniper SRX Series Firewall, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, NetWitness Platform and Check Point SandBlast Network.
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.