Compare Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Top Review
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, ReversingLabs, Group-IB and others in Threat Intelligence Platforms. Updated: September 2021.
534,768 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"The feature that I like best is the dashboard.""The most valuable feature is alerting.""It integrates well with other solutions and provides good threat intelligence in terms of external threats."

More Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Pros »

"I find the malware protection very handy.""The most valuable features are the simplicity, transparency, and overall ease of management.""With the IP address flag, I was able to see that I was being hacked. The moment there was an interaction between somebody on my network and that IP, the solution was able to flag it, and we were able to protect ourselves.""For those who want a next-gen firewall that's easy to configure and easy to operate, I think you should go for Palo Alto.""The most valuable features are that it's user-friendly, has interesting features, URL filtering, and threat prevention.""Edge protection is a valuable feature.""I like the solution's interface.""Everything has been okay with the solution. We are using all of the features."

More Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention Pros »

Cons
"I would like to have more technical documentation that contains greater detail on the types of threats that are occurring.""It would be better if they used the threat intelligence feeds directly from their side and changing the verdict instead of us requesting it.""It is a completely cloud-based product at present."

More Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Cons »

"I think they can use some improvement on FID.""The price of licenses should be lowered to make it less costly to scale our solution.""Sometimes when you want to group a set of ports, and communicate with Palo Alto, you cannot group TCP and UDP ports together. This needs to be adjusted.""The documentation needs to be improved. I need better information about how to configure it and what the best practices are.""Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved.""The pricing has improved with the newer generation of their Firewalls, but the price could always be lower. In comparison with other solutions, I believe they're quite competitive.""The technology firewall anomaly network could stand improvement.""In terms of what needs improvement, the only thing I don't like is the support."

More Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
"It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price.""If you want to have all of the good features then you have to pay extra for licensing.""The pricing has improved with the newer generation of their Firewalls, but the price could always be lower.""The pricing could be lower."

More Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
534,768 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The most valuable feature is alerting.
Top Answer: At times in AutoFocus, when you have a homegrown application or you check another threat intelligence feed, it's not malicious but is still categorized as gray. We need to request a change in the… more »
Top Answer: We are using AutoFocus with my playbooks. We use it on a daily basis. We receive alerts on the Playbook. We receive alerts for threat intelligence, malware alerts, and virus alerts. We use Autofocus… more »
Top Answer: The resource consumption should be addressed. The technology firewall anomaly network could stand improvement. The pricing could be better.
Ranking
Views
1,122
Comparisons
761
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
370
Rating
8.0
Views
5,420
Comparisons
4,567
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
354
Rating
8.6
Comparisons
Learn More
Overview

AutoFocus contextual threat intelligence service accelerates analysis, correlation and prevention workflows. Unique, targeted attacks are automatically prioritized with full context, allowing security teams to respond to critical attacks faster, without additional IT security resources.

Threats do not discriminate between application delivery vectors, requiring an approach that has full visibility into all application traffic, including SSL encrypted content, with full user context. Threat Prevention leverages the visibility of our next-generation firewall to inspect all traffic, automatically preventing known threats, regardless of port, protocol or SSL encryption.

Offer
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention
Sample Customers
Telkom Indonesia
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, SkiStar AB, TRI-AD, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider21%
Computer Software Company18%
Insurance Company8%
Media Company7%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm38%
Comms Service Provider25%
Aerospace/Defense Firm13%
Healthcare Company13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company23%
Comms Service Provider22%
Government7%
Financial Services Firm6%
Company Size
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise31%
Large Enterprise46%
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, ReversingLabs, Group-IB and others in Threat Intelligence Platforms. Updated: September 2021.
534,768 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is ranked 12th in Threat Intelligence Platforms with 3 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is ranked 8th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 8 reviews. Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus writes "Identifies critical attacks, easy to use, stable, and integrates well ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention writes "Easy to install, use, and manage, with extended trial-license options available". Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is most compared with Cisco Threat Grid, LogRhythm NextGen SIEM, Trend Micro Deep Discovery and Recorded Future, whereas Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is most compared with Darktrace, Cisco Stealthwatch, Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall, Check Point IPS and Vectra AI.

We monitor all Threat Intelligence Platforms 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.