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."My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway."
"Whole team can use the firewall and understand it."
"The most valuable feature is the cloud-based protection against zero-day malware attacks."
"It gives a more accurate assessment of a virus in terms of whether it's truly a virus, malware, or a false positive. We have some legacy software that could pop up as being something that is malware. WildFire goes through and inspects it, and then it comes back and lets us know if it's a false positive. Usually, when it finds out that it's not a virus, it lets us know that it's benign, and it can exclude it from that scan, which means I don't even have to worry about that one popping up anymore."
"The reporting feature helps our performance."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is how it keeps up-to-date with viruses."
"The graphic user interface of Palo Alto is good and it's easy to configure."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"Its ability to find zero-day threats, malware and anything malicious has greatly improved my customer's organization, especially for protecting the users' browser."
"We see ROI in the sense that we don't have to react because it stops anything from hurting the network. We can stop it before we have a bigger mess to clean up."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"We wanted to cross-reference that activity with the network traffic just to be sure there was no lateral movement. With Trellix, we easily confirmed that there was no lateral network involvement and that nothing else was infected. It helped us correlate the events and feel confident in our containment."
"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."
"Initially, we didn't have much visibility around what is occurring at our applications lower level. For instance, if we are exposed to any malicious attacks or SQL injections. But now we've integrated FireEye with Splunk, so now we get lots of triggers based on policy content associated with FireEye. The solution has allowed for growth and improvement in our information security and security operations teams."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"Palo Alto Networks WildFire should be more real-time in nature. The signature updates should happen in a minute or less than a minute to be a very good feature for the customer."
"They can keep on doing more updates. As new malware and viruses are coming out, they can make sure that WildFire is up to date."
"The price could be better."
"Management and web filtering can be improved. There should also be better reporting, particularly around web filtering."
"In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file."
"The global product feature needs improvement, the VPN, and we need some enhanced features."
"As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity."
"The cost of the solution is excessively high."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"The product's integration capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Technical support could be improved."
"It would be great if we could create granular reports based on the protocols, types of attacks, regions of attack, etc. Also we would like to easily be able to add exceptions to rules in cases of false positives."
"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."
"It is an expensive solution."
"The analytics could be better. It seems heavily influenced by the McAfee and FireEye integration, and that integration still isn't seamless."
"The problem with FireEye is that they don't allow VM or sandbox customization. The user doesn't have control of the VMs that are inside the box. It comes from the vendor as-is. Some users like to have control of it. Like what type of Windows and what type of applications and they have zero control over this."
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 37 reviews. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.4. 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 "Offers in-depth investigation capabilities, integrates well and smoothly transitioned from a lower-capacity appliance to a higher one". Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection and Netgate pfSense, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiGate, Vectra AI and NetWitness Platform. 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.