We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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 feature of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is its ability to adapt to environments and its robustness."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"A good tool for file scanning and email threat detection, especially when it comes to attachments and communications."
"We get support in the free version."
"The most effective feature of WildFire for threat analysis is its collaboration with other security profiles on our Palo Alto firewall."
"Their technical support is outstanding and top-notch."
"It is stable and pretty much scalable."
"We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable. We currently have six thousand users for the product."
"The installation phase was easy."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"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."
"Improved our systems and our customers' by providing better malware protection, defense against zero-day threats, and improved network security."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"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."
"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 features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."
"The data analytical system for deployment needs to improve."
"The cost of this solution could still be improved, in particular, giving product discounts for charitable causes."
"When you contact support, there is no guarantee that they will be available to help you tackle the issue that you are facing."
"It's not really their problem, it's a problem across the board. There will always be problems with interrupted traffic. We have to set it up where we're playing a middle man game where we're stripping it out, looking at it, and then putting it back together and sending it on its way. That requires CPU cycles. And there's some overhead with that."
"I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance."
"The only complaint that we receive from our customers is in regards to the price."
"In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file."
"Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that."
"A better depth of view, being able to see deeper into the management process, is what I'd like to see."
"We'd like the potential for better scaling."
"It is not a very secure product."
"Based on what we deployed, they should emphasize the application filtering and the web center. We need to look deeper into the SSM inspection. If we get the full solution with that module, we don't need to get the SSM database from another supplier."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
"They can maybe consider supporting some compliance standards. When we are configuring rules and policies, it can guide whether they are compliant with a particular compliance authority. In addition, if I have configured some rules that have not been used, it should give a report saying that these rules have not been used in the last three months or six months so that I disable or delete those rules."
"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."
"I would love to see better reporting. Because you can't export some of the reports in proper formats, it is hard to extract the data from reports."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. 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 Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Proofpoint Email Protection, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Arbor DDoS, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiGate, Vectra AI and Check Point SandBlast Network. See our Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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.