We performed a comparison between Cisco NGIPS and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System 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."Cisco is number one in the technical support. It's good technical support and this is actually a problem when we do the recruitment for some other products. Other products you are on hold forever and the support might be not the best compared to Cisco."
"I like the way the tool pushes the packets from the node level."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco NGIPS is the centralized user interface. You have the ability to quickly push out configurations across your environment using the Cisco UI. It's a powerful capability of that solution."
"I think their fingerprints are good in terms of how they whitelist and blacklist."
"The initial setup wasn't complex or complicated."
"The solution is very powerful coupled with Firepower."
"The top features of Cisco NGIPS, which have been working very well, include stateful inspection and the access list-based security configuration. But from my perspective, the best part of Cisco NGIPS is the licensing process, which is very easy and straightforward. It's essentially copy-paste licensing."
"We have found the product to be quite stable."
"The threat intelligence updates are very accurate."
"There's a good dashboard you can drill down into. It helps you easily locate intrusions and the source of attacks."
"The product is worth the investment."
"Overall the solution is very good. It offers great protection and gives us a good overview of what is on the network."
"McAfee NSP is much more stable than Cisco."
"The feature I found most valuable is the network threat analyzer in the security platform. It also integrates with GTI, or Global Threat Intelligence. Otherwise, I just use the basic features."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is a good product for dealing with DDoS attacks and for the inspection of network traffic."
"The ability to centrally manage all the IPS sensors, track the different security events generated by it, and customize the different policies, depending on their location."
"The user interface needs some improvement, it is a little rudimentary and not very intuitive."
"Overall, it lacks user-friendliness. It could be easier to manage. I can train any customer using FortiGate or Palo Alto in a few days, but with Cisco, it takes much more time because the systems aren't easy to use."
"What I don't like about Cisco recently is they keep changing the names, which makes it hard for customers and sometimes even us as engineers to know what is the solution they are speaking about. For example, with AMP, now they call it Secure Endpoint and I don't know if in the next couple of years they're going to change it to something else. They should keep the names the same."
"The feedback from some of our customers is that they weren't interested in Cisco because it was too complicated to deploy, especially in cloud-related areas."
"Should include additional security features."
"We have a separate management controller for Cisco NGIPS. If they have not done it already they should integrate Cisco NGIPS with the Cloud Portal."
"Cisco NGIPS' performance could be better."
"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"We would like to have a simpler version. Some settings and functions on the McAfee console are complex and complicated. I want the management console to be simpler."
"The management console needs to be less complex and easier to navigate."
"Integration with Global Thereat Intelligence could be better. Also, I think management solutions are end of life now at McAfee. Network threat analyzer may be used for endpoint quarantines. Integration between these sides, as well as endpoint APO, will help you quarantine the risky endpoints."
"The solution could improve some aspects of detection."
"There are limited resources for configuration guidance."
"Some of the documentation is not as straightforward as it could be."
"The technical support must be improved."
"The Network Security Managers could be more stable, agile, and work faster. When it comes to instability, there is room for improvement."
More Trellix Intrusion Prevention System Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco NGIPS is ranked 5th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 63 reviews while Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is ranked 15th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 14 reviews. Cisco NGIPS is rated 8.2, while Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco NGIPS writes "Very effective for malware and signature-based anomalies but stability needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Intrusion Prevention System writes "Protects from attacks in real-time and provides accurate threat intelligence updates". Cisco NGIPS is most compared with Check Point IPS, Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention and Darktrace, whereas Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is most compared with Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point IPS, Trend Micro Deep Discovery and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. See our Cisco NGIPS vs. Trellix Intrusion Prevention System 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.