Hozaifa SamadNetworking & Security Consultant at LayerZoom
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
Earn 20 points
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.
Our unique technology detects the most advanced threats, made with the most crafted exploitation methods (polymorphism, obfuscation, encoding, ROPchain…) and the threats based on all types of malicious files (ransomware, cryptolocker…).
Trackwatch® can be deployed from two types of devices: GCAP and GCENTER.
GCAP ensures the collection of network traffic flows and a portion of the anlyses. A GCAP is connected to a switch with a mirror port or to a TAP that copies the network traffic. One or more GCAPs can be deployed within an infrastructure, either locally or at remote sites. The GCAP(s) are connected to a GCENTER management device.
The GCENTER nalyses the information sent back by the GCAP, stores it, provides configuration and reporting interfaces, and exports the information to a security information and event management (SIEM).
Cisco NGIPS is ranked 4th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews while Gatewatcher is ranked 29th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS). Cisco NGIPS is rated 8.4, while Gatewatcher is rated 0.0. 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, 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 Hillstone S-Series Network Intrusion Prevention System, whereas Gatewatcher is most compared with Darktrace.
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.