We performed a comparison between Cisco NGIPS and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The IPS functionality is useful if you have offices all over the place. It's nice to have centralized management instead of going to a separate ASA or FirePOWER device."
"The thing about this solution that I like the most is that it's intuitive."
"The main advantages to Cisco are the scale, the integration, the training, and the possibility of finding somebody to work with."
"NGIPS' best feature is the separate IPSec tunnels, which makes the user's data more secure if they want to access it privately."
"Cisco is number one in the technical support. It's good technical support and this is actually a problem when we do the recruitment for some other products. Other products you are on hold forever and the support might be not the best compared to Cisco."
"This solution has helped improve productivity and detect attacks before they happen."
"I think their fingerprints are good in terms of how they whitelist and blacklist."
"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 most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is a good product for dealing with DDoS attacks and for the inspection of network traffic."
"The most valuable features in Trellix for me are the automated signature updates. It is a great and convenient feature."
"The product is worth the investment."
"McAfee NSP is much more stable than Cisco."
"There's a good dashboard you can drill down into. It helps you easily locate intrusions and the source of attacks."
"It has a lot of functions, such as firewall. We are administrators, and we create some rules to protect our network. We also monitor the traffic in and out and have disk encryption on-premises. When we detect malware, we scan for the virus on the PC. We can then delete or block the malware."
"Overall the solution is very good. It offers great protection and gives us a good overview of what is on the network."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution should contain the sandbox features which we find in Check Point."
"Overall, it lacks user-friendliness. It could be easier to manage. I can train any customer using FortiGate or Palo Alto in a few days, but with Cisco, it takes much more time because the systems aren't easy to use."
"Cisco NGIPS' performance could be better."
"The user interface needs some improvement, it is a little rudimentary and not very intuitive."
"I would like to see better integration with SIEMs."
"What I don't like about Cisco recently is they keep changing the names, which makes it hard for customers and sometimes even us as engineers to know what is the solution they are speaking about. For example, with AMP, now they call it Secure Endpoint and I don't know if in the next couple of years they're going to change it to something else. They should keep the names the same."
"I think that some initiation scripts might be helpful because they would make the configuration easier and more user-friendly for customers."
"They could provide one solution to fit all the use cases."
"The Network Security Managers could be more stable, agile, and work faster. When it comes to instability, there is room for improvement."
"The area of concern where the tool needs improvement is how the product prompts users at a network level that helps prevent any wireless network attacks through alerts and notifications."
"The management console needs to be less complex and easier to navigate."
"The platform’s GUI could be the latest."
"The technical support must be improved."
"Integration with Global Thereat Intelligence could be better. Also, I think management solutions are end of life now at McAfee. Network threat analyzer may be used for endpoint quarantines. Integration between these sides, as well as endpoint APO, will help you quarantine the risky endpoints."
"The pricing could be improved."
"There are limited resources for configuration guidance."
More Trellix Intrusion Prevention System Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco NGIPS is ranked 5th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 62 reviews while Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is ranked 14th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 14 reviews. Cisco NGIPS is rated 8.2, while Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco NGIPS writes "Very effective for malware and signature-based anomalies but stability needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Intrusion Prevention System writes "Protects from attacks in real-time and provides accurate threat intelligence updates". Cisco NGIPS is most compared with Check Point IPS, Fortinet FortiGate IPS, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Cisco Sourcefire SNORT and Darktrace, whereas Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is most compared with Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point IPS, Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall and Trend Micro Deep Discovery. See our Cisco NGIPS vs. Trellix Intrusion Prevention System 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.
