Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Sourcefire SNORT vs Trellix Intrusion Prevention System comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Sourcefire SNORT
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
14th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Trellix Intrusion Preventio...
Ranking in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) category, the mindshare of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is 3.3%, down from 3.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Intrusion Prevention System is 3.3%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
 

Featured Reviews

Syed Shahnawaz Hussain - PeerSpot reviewer
An IPS solution for security and protection but lacks stability
We assess the client's environment, including the size of the workforce responsible for firewall management. Sourcefire can be effective despite its complexity if you have a capable team. Sourcefire might not be more appropriate if you lack a strong IT team. When it comes to real-time traffic analysis, the requirements can vary significantly. Discussing an organization's or individual user's security posture adds another layer of complexity. It's important to note that there isn't a single device that can fully meet the demands of real-time traffic analysis for security purposes. Multiple appliances and solutions are often necessary to achieve comprehensive real-time visibility. We've successfully integrated Sourcefire into various environments, making the process relatively straightforward. We've incorporated it with certain NMS, so I foresee no significant challenges in integrating the Sourcefire. Cisco Sourcefire SNORT offers visibility and robust support. Its resource management documentation is notably extensive, enhancing usability. However, its complexity may pose challenges, especially as the market trends toward simpler solutions for intricate issues. While concerns regarding maturity and stability exist, the development team has actively addressed these issues, requiring ongoing scrutiny to ensure complete resolution. Overall, I rate the solution a 7 out of 10.
Juan Muriel - PeerSpot reviewer
Protects from attacks in real-time and provides accurate threat intelligence updates
I rate the ease of setup a seven or eight out of ten. The platform functions very well. We need technical support to make improvements to the platform. The deployment takes eight months. We need two or three system engineers and one electronic engineer specialized in Trellix platforms to deploy the tool. We need only one system engineer to maintain the product.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically learn the traffic in our environment, and change the merit recommendations based on that."
"It has a huge rate of protection. It's has a low level of positives and a huge rate of threat protection. It's easy to deploy and easy to implement. It has an incredible price rate compared to similar solutions."
"The solution is rather easy to use."
"The solution is stable."
"The product is inexpensive compared to leading brands such as Palo Alto or Fortinet."
"I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."
"The tool's most valuable feature is threat detection, which is important because we have multiple layers not only in Cisco."
"Solid intrusion detection and prevention that scales easily in very large environments."
"The feature I found most valuable is the network threat analyzer in the security platform. It also integrates with GTI, or Global Threat Intelligence. Otherwise, I just use the basic features."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"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."
"There's a good dashboard you can drill down into. It helps you easily locate intrusions and the source of attacks."
"The threat intelligence updates are very accurate."
"McAfee NSP is much more stable than Cisco."
"Overall the solution is very good. It offers great protection and gives us a good overview of what is on the network."
"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."
 

Cons

"We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco."
"Performance needs improvement."
"The cloud can be improved."
"The customization of the rules can be simplified."
"The initial setup is a little difficult compared to other products in the market. It depends on the environment. If we are doing any migration, it might take months in a brown-field environment."
"The implementation could be a bit easier."
"The main dashboard of Cisco Sourcefire SNORT could improve."
"Integration with other components — even Cisco's own products — can be enhanced to improve administrative experience."
"We would like to have a simpler version. Some settings and functions on the McAfee console are complex and complicated. I want the management console to be simpler."
"The platform’s GUI could be the latest."
"The management console needs to be less complex and easier to navigate."
"There are limited resources for configuration guidance."
"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."
"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 technical support has room for improvement."
"The solution needs to improve the graphical interface. And they had a limitation in some of the sensor modems as well."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have a three-year license for this solution."
"If one is an extremely expensive product, and ten is cheap, I rate the tool's price as a five."
"I don't know the exact amount, but most of the time when I go to a company with a proposition, they will say, "This thing that you are selling is good, but it's expensive. Why don't you propose something like FortiGate, Check Point, or Palo Alto?" Cisco device are expensive compared to other devices."
"Licensing for this solution is paid on a yearly basis."
"The cost is per port and can be expensive but it does include training and support for three years."
"The tool is competitively priced."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) solutions are best for your needs.
845,485 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
9%
University
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Sourcefire SNORT?
The product is inexpensive compared to leading brands such as Palo Alto or Fortinet.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Sourcefire SNORT?
If one is an extremely expensive product, and ten is cheap, I rate the tool's price as a five. There are some other tools in the market that are more expensive than Cisco. There are no additional c...
What needs improvement with Cisco Sourcefire SNORT?
Cisco offers the Cisco DNA Center, which is a source that provides crucial information for us to monitor performance, and see whether there is any trouble. We are using Cisco DNA center, but again,...
What do you like most about McAfee Network Security Platform?
The threat intelligence updates are very accurate.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for McAfee Network Security Platform?
The tool is competitively priced. I rate the pricing a six out of ten.
What needs improvement with McAfee Network Security Platform?
Network Threat Behavior Analysis must be improved. The technical support must be improved. The support team must provide better help with configurations of devices and enabling NTBA.
 

Also Known As

Sourcefire SNORT
McAfee Network Security Platform, McAfee NSP, IntruShield Network Intrusion Prevention System, IntruShield Network IPS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CareCore, City of Biel, Dimension Data, LightEdge, Lone Star College System, National Rugby League, Port Aventura, Smart City Networks, Telecom Italia, The Department of Education in Western Australia
Desjardins Group, HollyFrontier, Nubia, Agbar, WNS Global Services, INAIL, Universidad de Las Américas Puebla (UDLAP), Cook County, China Pacific Insurance, Bank Central Asia, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, City of Chicago, Macquarie Telecom, Sutherland Global Services, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, United Automotive Electronic Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Sourcefire SNORT vs. Trellix Intrusion Prevention System and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,485 professionals have used our research since 2012.