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 flexibility and ease of configuration are the most valuable features."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"The most valuable features are that it is very simple to configure and to manage."
"All of the features of Fortinet FortiGate are useful and the security protection is good."
"The feature I like most is the SD-WAN. It allows you to manage more than one ISP at the same time. And there is a high-availability mode, so if one of your ISPs is down, you still have a backup."
"It can expand easily."
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"The virtual firewall feature is the most valuable. We have around 1,500 firewalls. We did not buy individual hardware, and the virtual firewalls made sense because we don't have to keep on buying the hardware. FortiGate is easier to use as compared to Checkpoint devices. It is user friendly and has a good UI. You don't need much expertise to work on this firewall. You don't need to worry much about DCLA, commands, and things like that."
"The solution is pretty easy to deploy."
"An efficient, easy to deploy and dependable firewall solution."
"The protection and security features, like URL filtering, the inspection, and the IPS feature, are also very valuable for us. We don't have IT staff at most of the sites so for us it's important to have a robust firewall at those sites"
"The most valuable feature is the Intrusion Prevention System."
"I have found the most valuable feature to be the access control and IPsec VPN."
"We use the solution for deep packet inspection, Internet Edge functionality, IDS, and IDP."
"Cisco ASA provides us with very good application visibility and control."
"Cisco Secure Firewall's security solutions, advanced malware protection, and DDoS communication are very good."
"The features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"The installation phase was easy."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"The product has helped improve our organization by being easy to use and integrate. This saves time, trouble and money."
"The server appliance is good."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"It allows us to be more hands off in checking on emails and networking traffic. We can set up a bunch of different alerts and have it alert us."
"They should improve the interface to make it more user-friendly."
"The cloud management and automation capability could be improved."
"I'm not sure if it's something that they already have or are developing something, however, we need some dedicated features for container security."
"The solution is very expensive."
"I don't like that anything more than very basic reporting is not included."
"It is quite new for us, and we need to go more in-depth into the monitoring tools. It provides different features that we need to do what we want. So far, it is okay for us. In terms of improvement, in the future, they can provide a faster implementation of features. Some of the features are first available in other solutions. Fortinet sometimes takes a little bit longer than other solutions, such as Check Point, to implement new features."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"The scalability could be better."
"The security features in the URL category need more improvement."
"I have a lot of difficulties with the solution's Firewall Management Center (FMC) and the GUI. Neither is responsive enough and should be improved."
"A memory leakage issue which literally freeze the nodes (we have an HA environment). The issue is still not solved and the only recommendation from Cisco is to reboot the node."
"Most users do not have awareness of this product's functionality and features. Cisco should do something to make them aware of them. That would be quite excellent and useful to organizations that are still using legacy data-center-security products."
"The management of the firewalls could be improved because there are a lot of bugs."
"Cisco Secure Firewall’s customer support could be improved."
"Firepower's user experience should be a little bit better."
"It doesn't have a proper GUI to do troubleshooting, so most people have to rely on the command line."
"It doesn't connect with the cloud, advanced machine learning is not there. A known threat can be coming into the network and we would want the cloud to look up the problem. I would also like to see them develop more file replication and machine learning."
"It is an expensive solution."
"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 would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"Cybersecurity posture has room for improvement."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"They can maybe consider supporting some compliance standards. When we are configuring rules and policies, it can guide whether they are compliant with a particular compliance authority. In addition, if I have configured some rules that have not been used, it should give a report saying that these rules have not been used in the last three months or six months so that I disable or delete those rules."
"Technical packaging could be improved."
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 Zabbix.
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.
