We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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."The most valuable features are the User ID, URL filtering, and application filtering."
"It ensures that every interaction, pre and post-loan processing, undergoes a thorough inspection, leveraging VPN features and comprehensive security protocols."
"What I like about the VM-Series is that you can launch them in a very short time."
"The most valuable features are security and support."
"In the newer version, there are 3850s, all of them are scalable. They fit better into the medium or small businesses."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The Palo Alto VM-Series is nice because I can move the firewalls easily."
"It allows us to see all our traffic to properly secure it and only allow what is needed through the firewall."
"Before FireEye, most of the times that an incident would happen nobody would be able to find out where or why the incident occurred and that the system is compromised. FireEye is a better product because if the incident already happened I know that the breach is there and that the system is compromised so we can take appropriate action to prevent anything from happening."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"Application categorization is the most valuable feature for us. Application filtering is very interesting because other products don't give you full application filtering capabilities."
"Over the thirteen years of using the product, we have not experienced a single compromise in our environment. During the COVID period, we faced numerous DDoS attacks, and the tool proved highly effective in mitigating these threats."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"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."
"The scalability has not been a problem. We have deployed the product in very high bandwidth networks. We have never had a problem with the FireEye product causing latency issues within our networks."
"The solution must improve Zero Trust integration and use cases."
"There could be dynamic DNS features similar to Fortinet in the product."
"I would like to see a more thorough QA process. We have had some difficulties from bugs in releases."
"It has to be more scalable for the deployment of VMs on the cloud."
"Palo Alto should update their documentation to make it more readable and provide easier-to-follow instructions through videos."
"The utilization monitoring and GUI have room for improvement."
"We don't know how it will scale once we start putting more load on it."
"Its web interface is a bit outdated, and it needs to be updated. They can also improve the NAT functionality. We have had issues with the NAT setup."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
"It is not a very secure product."
"It is an expensive solution."
"FireEye Network Security should have better integration with other vendors' firewalls or proxies, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet. Files that are being submitted should happen through the API or automatically."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The product's integration capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It would be a good idea if we could get an option to block based upon the content of an email, or the content of a file attachment."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 52 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiGate and Vectra AI. See our Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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.
