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."Completely integrates branch offices with perimeter security."
"Cisco Technical Assistance Center works on a follow-the-sun concept and gives real 24x7 customer support, which is a great advantage when you have a service contract with them."
"Cisco has always been a premium product. There's a lot of other entry-level solutions. This is more robust."
"The solution is very user-friendly and easy to deal with."
"I'm able to transfer data over internet network security. With the GRE I'm able to transfer data within one bunch to another bunch in a public way, like the internet. The communication is encrypted and is private. It gives me added privacy."
"Cisco IOS allows us to keep the same security features as our principal offices."
"The technical is excellent."
"Cisco products are very secure and integrate easily with other devices."
"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 most valuable feature of this solution is the filtering."
"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."
"Solid intrusion detection and prevention that scales easily in very large environments."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically learn the traffic in our environment, and change the merit recommendations based on that."
"The solution is rather easy to use."
"It simplifies the configuration process by offering pre-defined base configurations, including security and connectivity settings."
"I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."
"The initial setup is complicated."
"Cisco IOS Security's monitoring is rather rudimentary and could be improved."
"Cisco IOS Security could improve by having more compatibility with other Cisco solutions."
"We cannot directly upgrade the system. The tool's deployment is also very difficult in legacy environments. The tool needs to have bigger ports as well."
"It would be ideal if the solution had more capacity."
"Cisco IOS Security could improve its security features. There are competitors that have some additional security features, such as Fortinet FortiGate. Additionally, there should be better synchronization with Cisco IOS Security and other vendors, and improved AI features would be beneficial."
"If they could increase the performance a little better because the device sometimes gets slow."
"I wish it would be more like the next generation firewall technology. There should be more selection between the application and filtering."
"The customization of the rules can be simplified."
"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."
"The implementation could be a bit easier."
"The main dashboard of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT could improve."
"There are problems setting up VPNs for some regions."
"We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco."
"I don't think this solution is a time-based control system, because one cannot filter traffic based on time."
"I would like to have analytics included in the suite."
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 10th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 47 reviews while Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is ranked 12th 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.
