We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"One of the key advantages for us is we define a 24/7 service around it. We use far more of Vectra alerts than we do with our SIEM product because we understand that when we get an alert from Vectra we actually need to do something about it."
"It is doing some artificial intelligence. If it sees a server doing a lot of things, then it will assume that is normal. So, it is looking for anomalous behavior, things that are out of context which helps us reduce time. Therefore, we don't have to look in all the logs. We just wait for Vectra to say, "This one is behaving strange," then we can investigate that part."
"One of the most valuable features of the platform is its ability to provide you with aggregated risk scores based on impact and certainty of threats being detected. This is both applied to individual and host detections. This is important because it enables us to use this platform to prioritize the most likely imminent threats. So, it reduces alert fatigue follow ups for security operation center analysts. It also provides us with an ability to prioritize limited resources."
"The solution's ability to reduce alerts, by rolling up numerous alerts to create a single incident or campaign, helps in that it collapses all the events to a particular host, or a particular detection to a set of hosts. So it doesn't generate too many alerts. By and large, whatever alerts it generates are actionable, and actionable within the day."
"It gives you access, with Recall, to instant visibility into your network through something like a SIEM solution. For us, being able to correlate all of this network data without having to manage it, has provided immediate value. It gives us the ability to really work on the stuff where I and my team have expertise, instead of having to manage a SIEM solution..."
"The solution provide visibility into behaviors across the full lifecycle of an attack in our network, beyond just the Internet gateway. It makes our security operations much more effective because we are now looking not just at traffic on the border, but we're looking at east-west internal traffic. Now, not only will we see if an exploit kit is being downloaded, but we would be able to see then if that exploit kit was then laterally distributed into our environment."
"Vectra produces actionable data using automation. That has helped us. It's less manpower now to look at incidents, which has definitely increased efficiency. Right now, in a lot of cases, our mean time to detection is within zero days. This tells me by the time something happened, and we were able to detect it, it was within the same day."
"One of the most valuable features is all the correlation that it does using AI and machine learning. An example would be alerting on a host and then alerting on other things, like abnormal behavior, that it has noticed coming from the same host. It's valuable because we're a very lean team."
"Ir's signature-based. We are also using the anomaly baseline formation, where it links the network, then anything that goes away from the norm is also flagged. Those are the two most valuable features."
"The solution gives us a lot of visibility into our security."
"The features that I find most valuable are the DDoS protection, IPS/IDS, and Firepower for web application filtering."
"Good IPS and VirtualBox features."
"I think their fingerprints are good in terms of how they whitelist and blacklist."
"The main advantages to Cisco are the scale, the integration, the training, and the possibility of finding somebody to work with."
"In the virtual deployment, you have a couple of choices depending on your needs and how much bandwidth you have that needs to be inspected."
"I configured the system myself and the process was okay."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"We have not had to reach out to FortiGate support yet and that is a pretty good track record."
"The VPN used with the product is secure and reliable without lag."
"It is a good product. It does what we want it to do so. I didn't find many false-positives or things like that. We mainly use the IPS and URL filtering features, and they are pretty good."
"The most valuable features are security and vision, and all of the UTM functionality."
"Simple interface and easy to deploy."
"Its interface is the most valuable. It is quite easy to manage."
"I like its ability to prevent external intrusion into our database. It's so fun."
"The solution has not reduced the security analyst workload in our organization because we still need to SIEM. Unfortunately, while Vectra, for us, is a brilliant tool for network investigations, giving wonderful visibility, it doesn't go the whole way to replace our SIEM that is needed for compliance. So, I still have the same amount of alerting and logging that I did before. It gives us more defined ability to see incidents, but it doesn't give us enough information to satisfy a PCI or 27001 audit."
"We would like to see more information with the syslogs. The syslogs that they send to our SIEM are a bit short compared to what you can see. It would be helpful if they send us more data that we can incorporate into our SIEM, then can correlate with other events."
"You are always limited with visibility on the host due to the fact that it is a network based tool. It gives you visibility on certain elements of the attack path, but it doesn't necessarily give you visibility on everything. Specifically, the initial intrusion side of things that doesn't necessarily see the initial compromise. It doesn't see stuff that goes on the host, such as where scripts are run. Even though you are seeing traffic, it doesn't necessarily see the malicious payload. Therefore, it's very difficult for it to identify these type of host-driven complex attacks."
"One thing which I have found where there could be improvement is with regard to the architecture, a little bit: how the brains and sensors function. It needs more flexibility with regard to the brain. If there were some flexibility in that regard, that would be helpful, because changing the mode of the brain is complex. In some cases, the change is permanent. You cannot revert it."
"Some of the customization could be improved. Everything is provided for you as an easy solution to use, but working with it and doing specific development could be worked on a bit more in the scope of an incident response team."
"Some of their integrations with other sources of data, like external threat feeds, took a bit more work than I had hoped to get integrated."
"I would like to see a bit more strategic metrics instead of technical data. Information that I could show to my executive management team or board would be valuable."
"It does a little bit of packet capture on alert so you can look at the packet capture activity going on, but it doesn't collect a whole lot of data. Sometimes it's only one or two frames, sometimes it does collect more. That's why they have the addition of their Recall platform, because that really does help expand the capability."
"It has room for improvement when it comes to integrating machine learning and AI into it where even if you don't have a baseline that is of length for anomaly detection, it could do more like an AI style machine learning. It learns on its own."
"The solution requires better management. When it comes to central management capabilities, improvements can be made."
"Better integration with other products, such as a SIEM tool, would provide better peer visibility about your security posture."
"Should include additional security features."
"The only thing I think they may need to improve on a little bit is identifying software more correctly when you do network discovery."
"I think that some initiation scripts might be helpful because they would make the configuration easier and more user-friendly for customers."
"Cisco can do better on their documentation because the product is really hard to understand."
"The onboarding process could be made a little bit better."
"Integration with the antivirus companion Webroot is not seamless on Mac computers."
"They can probably improve the reporting feature. Reporting and report alerting are the main key features of this solution. They can always find ways to improve these."
"The user interface needs a bit of upgrading."
"Monitoring could be improved."
"Its performance can be better. We have had performance issues in the past, but we sometimes tend to find that it is more related to what we do in our network than anything else. It is quite a good product, and there isn't much to improve."
"It would be better if they had a dashboard where we could see what attacks were happening. It would be good to see who's trying to get into our network."
"The solution could improve the configuration, there are times the configuration is missing."
"We are running at about 90,000 pounds per year. The solution is a licensed cost. The hardware that they gave us was pretty much next to nothing. It is the license that we're paying for."
"The license is based on the concurrent IP addresses that it's investigating. We have 9,800 to 10,000 IP addresses."
"There are additional features that can be purchased in addition to the standard licensing fee, such as Cognito Recall and Stream."
"We have a desire to increase our use. However, it all comes down to budget. It's a very expensive tool that is very difficult to prove business support for. We would like to have two separate networks. We have our corporate network and PCI network, which is segregated due to payment processing. We don't have it for deployed in the PCI network. It would be good to have it fully deployed there to provide us with additional monitoring and control, but the cost associated with their licensing model makes it prohibitively expensive to deploy."
"At the time of purchase, we found the pricing acceptable. We had an urgency to get something in place because we had a minor breach that occurred at the tail end of 2016 to the beginning of 2017. This indicated we had a lack of ability to detect things on the network. Hence, why we moved quickly to get into the tool in place. We found things like Bitcoin mining and botnets which we closed quickly. In that regard, it was worth the money."
"The pricing is very good. It's less expensive than many of the tools out there."
"The pricing is high."
"Their licensing model is antiquated. I'm not a fan of their licensing model. We have to pay for licensing based on four different things. You have to pay based on the number of unique IPs, the number of logs that we send through Recall and Stream, and the size of our environment. They need to simplify their licensing down to just one thing. It should be based on the amount of data, the number of devices, or something else, but there should be just one thing for everything. That's what they need to base their licensing on. Cost-wise, they're not cheap. They were definitely the most expensive option, but you get what you pay for. They're not the cheapest option."
"Pricing depends on negotiation with the vendor, although I can say that it is moderate."
"The cost of the license depends on the level of support that you have with Cisco."
"This is an expensive product, with the biggest cost being the license that keeps the service going."
"There are licensing fees depending on the features that you are using."
"Cisco products are not cheap and this solution is no different."
"It is expensive. It has separate licensing for all the features, and every feature set seems to require another license. Licensing is on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs besides the standard licensing fee."
"The licensing can be billed annually or in multi-year contracts such as three, four, or five years."
"The pricing could be improved. Our customers have a yearly license."
"The pricing for FortiGate IPS is competitive with other products in the category."
"We are currently evaluating a Palo Alto solution, and the pricing could be a reason for going for Palo Alto."
"They are more expensive than others."
"It is not expensive as compared to Cisco."
"The price is okay, so far so good."
Vectra® is the leader in network detection and response – from cloud and data center workloads to user and IoT devices. Its Cognito® platform accelerates threat detection and investigation using artificial intelligence to collect, store and enrich network metadata with the right context to detect, hunt and investigate known and unknown threats in real time. Vectra offers three applications on the Cognito platform to address high-priority use cases. Cognito Stream™ sends security-enriched metadata to data lakes and SIEMs. Cognito Recall™ is a cloud-based application to store and investigate threats in enriched metadata. And Cognito Detect™ uses AI to reveal and prioritize hidden and unknown attackers at speed.
Cisco Firepower NGIPS provides network visibility, threat intelligence, automation and industry leading threat effectiveness. Gartner has ranked Firepower NGIPS as a Magic Quadrant Leader for seven years running, and the independent NSS Labs testing organization consistently rates it as a “Recommended” IPS solution for eight years.
An intrusion prevention system (IPS) is a critical component of every network’s core security capabilities. It protects against known threats and zero-day attacks including malware and underlying vulnerabilities. Deployed inline as a bump in the wire, many IPS solutions perform deep packet inspection of traffic at wire speed, requiring high throughput and low latency.
Fortinet delivers IPS technology via the industry-validated and recognized FortiGate platform. FortiGate security processors provide unparalleled high performance, while FortiGuard Labs informs industry-leading threat intelligence, creating an IPS with proven success in protecting from known and zero-day threats. As a key component of the Fortinet Security Fabric, FortiGate IPS secures the entire end-to-end infrastructure without compromising performance.
Cisco NGIPS is ranked 5th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews while Fortinet FortiGate IPS is ranked 11th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 7 reviews. Cisco NGIPS is rated 8.4, while Fortinet FortiGate IPS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco NGIPS writes "The anomaly baseline formation links the network, then anything that goes away from the norm is also flagged". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiGate IPS writes "Practically perfect in every way with superior marks for the VPN services". Cisco NGIPS is most compared with Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Check Point IPS, McAfee Network Security Platform, Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention and Cisco Sourcefire SNORT, whereas Fortinet FortiGate IPS is most compared with Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention, Cisco Sourcefire SNORT, Trend Micro Deep Discovery and Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB. See our Cisco NGIPS vs. Fortinet FortiGate IPS 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.