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."Layer-3 firewall and routing are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very user friendly. We are utilizing most of the features, like content filtering. The firewall is powerful."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiGate was straightforward."
"FortiGate is flexible and easy to use."
"We've found the solution to be pretty stable."
"Customers are more inclined towards FortiGate because of application control, web filtering, and anti-spam features. The support from the FortiGate team is good, and price-wise, it is affordable."
"The performance is good."
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"One of the most valuable features of Firepower 7.0 is the "live log" type feature called Unified Event Viewer. That view has been really good in helping me get to data faster, decreasing the amount of time it takes to find information, and allowing me to fix problems faster. I've found that to be incredibly valuable because it's a lot easier to get to some points of data now."
"A good intrusion prevention system and filtering."
"The most valuable feature is that it has the ability to divide the network into three parts; internal, external, and DMZ."
"The VPN feature is the most valuable to us because it accomplishes the task well. We're able to do everything we need to do."
"The IPS, as well as the malware features, are the two things that we use the most and they're very valuable."
"It is a very stable product. I've not had any issues with it. It is a super product, and I won't need to change it anytime soon."
"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."
"The ASA 55-x range is a solid and reliable firewall. It secures the traffic for normal purposes."
"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."
"Initially, we didn't have much visibility around what is occurring at our applications lower level. For instance, if we are exposed to any malicious attacks or SQL injections. But now we've integrated FireEye with Splunk, so now we get lots of triggers based on policy content associated with FireEye. The solution has allowed for growth and improvement in our information security and security operations teams."
"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"The scalability has not been a problem. We have deployed the product in very high bandwidth networks. We have never had a problem with the FireEye product causing latency issues within our networks."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"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 MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"NGN, reporting and controls."
"When we cluster the two Fortinet FortiGate boxes together we have some issues."
"The solution is very expensive."
"The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response."
"They sometimes hide some features and if you want to enable them, you have to go in the CLI, enable the feature and configure it through the CLI. Customers, typically, like everything to be done by the GUI."
"If they could extend their fabric towards other vendor environments for integration, that would be great."
"There are a lot of bugs I have found in the solution and it is difficult to upgrade. These areas need improvement."
"Fortinet needs to overhaul its documentation."
"One of my main concerns, an area that could use improvement is in adjusting the need to buy a license to enable features."
"When we first got it, we were doing individual configuring. Now, there is a way to manage from one location."
"One feature lacking is superior anti-virus protection, which must be added."
"One of the challenges we've had with the Cisco ASA is the lack of a strong controller or central management console that is dependable and reliable all the time."
"Antivirus features must be integrated for end user security."
"In the future, I would like to be able to use an IP phone over a VPN connection."
"You shouldn't have to use the ASDM to help manage the client."
"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."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
"It would be a good idea if we could get an option to block based upon the content of an email, or the content of a file attachment."
"It is an expensive solution."
"A better depth of view, being able to see deeper into the management process, is what I'd like to see."
"It would be great if we could create granular reports based on the protocols, types of attacks, regions of attack, etc. Also we would like to easily be able to add exceptions to rules in cases of false positives."
"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."
"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."
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.