We performed a comparison between Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection and Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Infoblox, Palo Alto Networks and others in Domain Name System (DNS) Security."DHCP is a basic service, and they've been doing it for years, so it's mature and stable."
"The main advantages with Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection are the dashboards, the reporting system, and they have the GUI interface."
"Grid high availability technology ensured network reliability, resilient network services, failover, recovery, and seamless maintenance."
"Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection allows us to manage our overall addresses and IT in one location. Many companies are using this solution, it is very popular."
"The security of the solution is perfect. It's very good at protecting us from attacks."
"I like that Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is one hundred percent good, performance-wise."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is its performance and visibility."
"I would recommend it to others as it's easy to use."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the antivirus and child protection features."
"The most valuable feature of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is the antivirus."
"The most valuable aspect for me is the user-friendly interface."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price could be reduced to improve the solution."
"I think only the technical documentation and administration of box could be a little bit improved."
"They are not supporting high query logging. They have a very limited size for the syslog, so they are usually asking for external storage, external network, and integration in order to keep the syslog. If you are considering the high volume traffic of the carrier-grade, then the syslog will hold for around five to 10 minutes. This is not enough time and it is being rotated. This is the main issue and the main limitation that we face with them that they need to work on."
"The solution's logging could be improved."
"Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection could be more user-friendly because you need knowledge if you want to use it. To handle the solution, you need to be a subject matter expert, so this is one area for improvement."
"There is a steep learning curve to be able to use Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection well."
"Infoblox lacks an extensive product portfolio."
"The customer support of the product is an area with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the pricing."
"The initial setup of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is complex. The full deployment took approximately two weeks."
"I believe the absence of a procedure is the main issue."
More Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is ranked 2nd in Domain Name System (DNS) Security with 12 reviews while Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is ranked 18th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 6 reviews. Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is rated 8.2, while Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection writes "Stable, with good performance, and has no issues, support-wise". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway writes "Is easy to use and is scalable". Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, F5 BIG-IP DNS, Palo Alto Networks DNS Security, Zscaler Internet Access and EfficientIP DNS Guardian, whereas Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is most compared with AhnLab V3 Internet Security, Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access and Quad9.
We monitor all Domain Name System (DNS) Security 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.