We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security and Cisco Sourcefire SNORT based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product has valuable features for business intelligence."
"The VPN is the most valuable feature."
"It is less expensive than alternative firewalls."
"The VPN was valuable for us because more people are working from home. It has a lot of reporting and easy-to-use management tools."
"The most valuable features are DNS service and shell self-service within a network."
"There is a positive impact on security, particularly the intrusion feature, which helps keep the solution concealed and secure."
"The Intrusion Firewall is a valuable feature."
"The security is very good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the filtering."
"The product is inexpensive compared to leading brands such as Palo Alto or Fortinet."
"Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is easy to configure and the reporting is great. It's also very user-friendly."
"It has a huge rate of protection. It's has a low level of positives and a huge rate of threat protection. It's easy to deploy and easy to implement. It has an incredible price rate compared to similar solutions."
"The solution is rather easy to use."
"Cisco technical support is unbeatable. It offers a premium service every time."
"I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."
"In general, the features are all great. However, if I need to take hardware for ASA, because they need to upgrade to Firepower, we want to create rules. For that, most of the time we go to the command line. Right now Firepower is working really hard on the grid. You can apply all those rules to the grid. Even if you want to monitor the logs, for example, the activity will tell you which particular user has been blocked because of that rule. Firepower's monitoring interface is very good, because you can see each and every piece. ASA also had it, but there you needed to type the command and be under the server to see all that stuff. In Firepower you have the possibility to go directly to the firewall. The way the monitoring is displayed is also very nice. The feature I appreciate most in Firepower is actually the grid. The grid has worked very well."
"The solution’s setup process could be better."
"The solution is complex and can be more user-friendly."
"In the security portfolio from Cisco, the issue is marketing. Cisco is still seen primarily as an enterprise network player rather than being acknowledged as a security vendor."
"There could be a bit more functions on offer that could make it easier to use."
"There's a technology called SD-WAN that we would like to see. We are unable to handle multiple connections or to automatically load balance. I would like to have a feature that enables us to automatically prepare for load balancing."
"I think setup could be one area for improvement, because sometimes we don't have people inside so we have to move to the place."
"I would like to see much more embedded security that works and that isn't a bolt-on."
"It takes too much time to deploy a policy to FMC. It takes around eight minutes. You can't afford any downtime when you're changing policies."
"The cloud can be improved."
"Integration with other components — even Cisco's own products — can be enhanced to improve administrative experience."
"If the price is brought down then everybody will be happy."
"The customization of the rules can be simplified."
"The implementation could be a bit easier."
"We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco."
"The initial setup is a little difficult compared to other products in the market. It depends on the environment. If we are doing any migration, it might take months in a brown-field environment."
"While the alerts they offer are good, it could improve it in the sense that they should be more detailed to make the alerts more useful to us in general. Sometimes the solution will offer up false positives. Due to the fact that the alerts aren't detailed, we have to go dig around to see why is it being blocked. The solution would be infinitely better if there was just a bit more detail in the alert information and logging we receive."
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 11th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 47 reviews while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is ranked 13th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT writes "An IPS solution for security and protection but lacks stability". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki MX, Fortinet FortiOS and Netgate pfSense, whereas Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Cisco NGIPS, Check Point IPS, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and Darktrace. See our Cisco IOS Security vs. Cisco Sourcefire SNORT report.
See our list of best Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) vendors.
We monitor all Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) 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.
