We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks WildFire and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The graphic user interface of Palo Alto is good and it's easy to configure."
"WildFire's application encryption is useful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is how it keeps up-to-date with viruses."
"What I like about Palo Alto is that it is a complete product, with everything in it."
"The most valuable feature is the cloud-based protection against zero-day malware attacks."
"The most valuable features of this solution are sandbox capabilities."
"The scalability is acceptable."
"The solution is scalable."
"Its ability to find zero-day threats, malware and anything malicious has greatly improved my customer's organization, especially for protecting the users' browser."
"Improved our systems and our customers' by providing better malware protection, defense against zero-day threats, and improved network security."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"The MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"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."
"If we are receiving spam emails, or other types of malicious email coming from a particular email ID, then we are able to block them using this solution."
"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."
"They provide a medium level of technical support."
"The free version does not have real-time updates. It is slow."
"They should make their user interface a little more user-friendly."
"The initial setup was a little bit complex, mainly due to the GUI console and management challenges."
"I don't think it needs to improve anything, except maybe the speed to deploy the changes."
"The support is good but they could be faster."
"I would like to see them continue on their developmental roadmap for the product."
"In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file."
"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 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."
"As far as future inclusions, it would be useful to display more threat intelligence, such as the actual area of the threat and the origin of the web crawling (Tor and Dark Web)."
"I would love to see better reporting. Because you can't export some of the reports in proper formats, it is hard to extract the data from reports."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"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."
"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."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Proofpoint Email Protection, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Arbor DDoS, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiGate, Vectra AI and Check Point SandBlast Network. See our Palo Alto Networks WildFire vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.