We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks WildFire and SafeBreach based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)."The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks WildFire are the good URL and file analysis that uses artificial intelligence. It has different interfaces, such as rest, SMTP protocol, and HTTPS. The Security incidents and event management are very good. Additionally, there are many file types that are supported and there is no limit to the number of files it can handle simultaneously. It integrates well with SIEM solutions."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is its ability to adapt to environments and its robustness."
"The solution is completely integrated with all the other Palo Alto products. I think that it is the best part for endpoint protection. The firewall features include URL and DNS filtering, threat protection, and antivirus."
"The most valuable features are all of the security features in terms of protection and SSL and VPN."
"The scalability is acceptable."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Using WildFire has reduced the number of viruses and the amount of malware that comes into our system, which means that I don't have to rely on the end-users to identify it."
"I like the analysis they apply to the unknown files, and I think they have good technology to use as a sandboxing tool. I didn't find something similar to WildFire in the marketplace."
"The most valuable feature is the huge library of hack attacks and breach methods."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting database and attack protection."
"In the future, I would like to see more automation in the reporting."
"I think it would be nice for Palo Alto to work without the connection to the cloud. It is 100% powerful when connected to the cloud. But, if you disconnect from the cloud, you only get 40-50% power."
"The deployment model could be better."
"Palo Alto Networks WildFire could improve by adding support for manual submission of suspicious files and URLs. Additionally, it would be an advantage to add rule-based analysis. Currently, it uses only static and AI. We need to be able to analyze archive files."
"Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that."
"The threat intelligence that we receiving in the reporting was not as expected. We were expecting more. Additionally, we should be able to whitelist a specific file based on a variety of attributes."
"When comparing this solution to others it is not as good overall."
"As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity."
"I would like to see some integration on the customization and customer support."
"There is room for improvement in the interface. It is not always easy to find the options that you need and not everything is customizable."
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews while SafeBreach is ranked 5th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 2 reviews. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4, while SafeBreach is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SafeBreach writes "Breach and attach simulation solution used to test security tools with a valuable library of hacking data". Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection and Fortinet FortiSandbox, whereas SafeBreach is most compared with Picus Security, Cymulate, Pentera, AttackIQ and XM Cyber.
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.