Cisco Firepower 4100 Series vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cisco Firepower 4100 Series
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
The Cisco Firepower 4100 Series’ 1-rack-unit size is presented by the vendodr as ideal at the Internet edge and in high-performance environments. They further state that it shows what’s happening on your network, detects attacks earlier so you can act faster, and reduces management complexity.N/A
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Traps replaces traditional antivirus with multi-method prevention, a proprietary combination of malware and exploit prevention methods that protect users and endpoints from known and unknown threats.N/A
Pricing
Cisco Firepower 4100 SeriesPalo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
Editions & Modules
Firepower 4100
50,000-250,000
per appliance
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Firepower 4100 SeriesPalo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details——
More Pricing Information
Features
Cisco Firepower 4100 SeriesPalo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
Firewall
Comparison of Firewall features of Product A and Product B
Cisco Firepower 4100 Series
8.0
3 Ratings
6% below category average
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
-
Ratings
Identification Technologies9.73 Ratings00 Ratings
Visualization Tools9.53 Ratings00 Ratings
Content Inspection7.93 Ratings00 Ratings
Policy-based Controls9.73 Ratings00 Ratings
Active Directory and LDAP7.22 Ratings00 Ratings
Firewall Management Console9.93 Ratings00 Ratings
Reporting and Logging6.13 Ratings00 Ratings
VPN7.03 Ratings00 Ratings
High Availability5.33 Ratings00 Ratings
Stateful Inspection9.83 Ratings00 Ratings
Proxy Server5.52 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Cisco Firepower 4100 SeriesPalo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
Small Businesses
pfSense
pfSense
Score 9.2 out of 10
SentinelOne Singularity
SentinelOne Singularity
Score 9.1 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Next-Generation Firewalls - PA Series
Next-Generation Firewalls - PA Series
Score 9.3 out of 10
SentinelOne Singularity
SentinelOne Singularity
Score 9.1 out of 10
Enterprises
Next-Generation Firewalls - PA Series
Next-Generation Firewalls - PA Series
Score 9.3 out of 10
SentinelOne Singularity
SentinelOne Singularity
Score 9.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Cisco Firepower 4100 SeriesPalo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
Likelihood to Recommend
9.8
(3 ratings)
8.8
(12 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
2.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(3 ratings)
User Testimonials
Cisco Firepower 4100 SeriesPalo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
Likelihood to Recommend
Cisco
When we are asked by local partners which security equipment we use we always recommend our Cisco security products. The Firepower firewall is no exception and we can easily recommend this to others who need a fast, secure, and well built system that integrates well with all your existing hardware and software.
Read full review
Palo Alto Networks
Malware that doesn’t leave files behind has become widely available. Anyone who can afford to reverse this trend should purchase technology. Application whitelisting isn’t for everyone, and Palo Alto Networks Traps can help. Enterprises looking for a low-affected, next-generation solution with high protection should consider it. PAN Traps is a great product at a reasonable price, and I highly recommend it.
Read full review
Pros
Cisco
  • Policy management in the GUI. I'm old-school, and still create ACLs in the CLI, but using the GUI for this is very nice.
  • Event monitoring and reporting is great, and you can get very granular when it comes to what information you are viewing.
  • I really like the troubleshooting features that are built in, especially the packet tracer and the ability to generate and download a troubleshooting package to review or send to TAC.
Read full review
Palo Alto Networks
  • Direct Access to devices via Live Terminal which provides operations with scripting, triage, and preservation of artifacts.
  • Behavioral Indicators of Compromise which provides alerts on events regarding groups of hosts and their signatures.
  • Querying complex data sets involving a variety of devices for network connections, hashes, DNS, etc.
Read full review
Cons
Cisco
  • When deployed as Firepower Threat Defense, configurations cannot be made within the device itself.
  • Troubleshooting can be difficult if the Cisco Firepower 4100 Series firewall is managed by the Cisco Firepower Management Center.
  • There are two operating systems in Cisco Firepower 4100 Series, firmware upgrade process will take a long time.
Read full review
Palo Alto Networks
  • Traps doesn't seem to function as a traditional A/V very well, so it's better as another layer to your endpoint protection
  • Traps can cause issues with some legacy or custom programs, so exceptions may have to be made
  • Traps falsely identifies things as malicious at times, this is not often though
Read full review
Usability
Cisco
No answers on this topic
Palo Alto Networks
Day to day, Cortex is easy to use when you have no alerts and when an agent upgrade doesn't go south. Alerts are far too "clicky", there's too many steps to drilling down to what actually happened to trigger an alert. Investigating alerts in Cortex takes about 5x longer than it should.
Read full review
Support Rating
Cisco
No answers on this topic
Palo Alto Networks
The support we receive from Palo Alto is one of the best aspects of Traps. It is very easy to recommend their support. It seems much easier to connect directly with someone with a deep understanding of the product rather than other companies where you basically have to make an airtight case that it is some kind of non-standard issue that can't be solved with existing documentation. Palo Alto digs deep and helps with advanced troubleshooting to get things working.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Cisco
As I mentioned before, the Fortigates have better failover. I think the Cisco interface is easier to use that that of the FortiGate. My only criticism would be that with multiple CLIs, it can get a bit confusing when you are trying to configure something or troubleshoot from the CLI.
Read full review
Palo Alto Networks
Traps is the slickest interface, easy to use and intuitive rule making, and the rest just didn't quite stack up to the performance level of Traps. McAfee and Kaspersky just hog processor and RAM power. I didn't like the interface and functionality of SentinelOne as much as Traps. Palo Alto really put a lot of time into the development of this software, and had some of the founding fathers of IT Security heading the development process. Can't beat that.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Cisco
  • Positive impact would be our increased security network wide.
  • Another positive would be the increased processing power, saving us time and [from] needing more equipment.
  • A negative impact would be the increased need for having to learn a new interface.
Read full review
Palo Alto Networks
  • After putting Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR on a user's system, users came back with a positive response that there are no performance issues now.
  • We are able to track and control granular suspicious and malicious activities.
  • Web controls are missing, which if they would have been there would have been very helpful.
Read full review
ScreenShots