We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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."The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"It has been scalable."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"The solution handles DSD segregation and monitors the gateways"
"It catches modified signatures of known viruses."
"The threat intelligence from WildFire supports our proactive defense strategies."
"It is stable and pretty much scalable."
"WildFire's application encryption is useful."
"The solution is completely integrated with all the other Palo Alto products. I think that it is the best part for endpoint protection. The firewall features include URL and DNS filtering, threat protection, and antivirus."
"The most valuable features are all of the security features in terms of protection and SSL and VPN."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is its ability to adapt to environments and its robustness."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"The initial setup was a little bit complex, mainly due to the GUI console and management challenges."
"The technical support response needs improvement."
"It would be nice if there was an easier way to install and deploy it, such as through the inclusion of wizards."
"In terms of what I'd like to see in the next release of Palo Alto Networks WildFire, each release is based on malware that has been identified. The key problem is an average of six months from the time malware is written to the time it's discovered and a signature is created for it. The only advice that I can give is for them to shorten that timeframe. I don't know how they would do it, but if they shorten that, for example, cut it in half, they'll make themselves more famous."
"The VPN and decryption need improvement."
"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 cyber security visibility and forensics features to receive more information about incidents could improve in Palo Alto Networks WildFire."
"The initial setup was complex."
Digital Guardian is ranked 20th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 11 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 60 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Proofpoint Email Protection. See our Digital Guardian vs. Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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.