We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security and OPNsense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and there are several operating systems that can include the hardware capacities. In the newer releases, the resources were more useful because they were included in the operating system."
"Customers want to load balance more than eight lines or six internet lines. FortiGate is the only solution that can accomplish this."
"The solution is scalable."
"We can detect any attack of viruses or malware at the first point of contact."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"I like that you are able to manage FortiGate from the FortiManager to create a more centralized environment."
"The CLI and GUI do a good job of putting a lot at your fingertips."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"It is less expensive than alternative firewalls."
"Cisco IOS Security has many good features, but compared to other solutions, it has a more user-friendly interface with steps to apply and manage rules. Another good part of the solution is that it's more straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco IOS Security is posturing."
"Cisco IOS Security is a mature product with extensive capabilities, serving as the base for the defense layer. It offers good network visibility, which helps in rapid response through the Rapid Threat Containment feature. Its deployment and configuration are straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is endpoint protection."
"The VPN connection portal scan works flawlessly, which was a big plus for us."
"You can scale it when you need to."
"The Intrusion Firewall is a valuable feature."
"We have been operating here in our lab for several months, and everything appears to be extremely stable."
"OPNsense is easy to scale when running on the hardware."
"The initial setup is easy. It only takes 15-30 minutes to deploy."
"The initial implementation process is simple."
"The VPN server feature is the most valuable. It is integrated with Radius and AAA for doing accounting and authentication. Insight view is also an important feature for me at this time. It allows me to assess our network traffic. I also like the firewall feature. The BSD kernel has a packet filter. It is one of the most solid frameworks for firewalls. Its user interface is one of the best interfaces I have used."
"One of the most valuable features is the network checking. Additionally, the firewall and web filtering functionalities are highly useful."
"It has firewall and VPN capabilities, which are very valuable features."
"The solution has high availability."
"Some of the features in the graphical user interface do not work, which requires that we used the command-line-interface."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"The reports are very basic."
"I need user-behavior analytics, to find threat scenarios from inside the organization, insider attacks. That would be very helpful for us. In addition, I would like next-generation features for small and medium businesses. These businesses require UTM, all in one product. Fortinet must include it."
"Improvement is needed in the Web Filter quotas to restrict users with allocated quotas."
"I would prefer to have more detailed logs within the FortiGate products themselves rather than relying on a separate tool."
"Fortinet needs more memory to save the log files. We need it to save the logs on the hardware and not in the cloud. I know this feature is available in FortiCloud, but if we need this log locally, it is not available."
"With respect to user-friendliness, it is a command-line interface and those with such experience will get along just fine, whereas others may struggle."
"Cisco IOS Security could improve its security features. There are competitors that have some additional security features, such as Fortinet FortiGate. Additionally, there should be better synchronization with Cisco IOS Security and other vendors, and improved AI features would be beneficial."
"There's a technology called SD-WAN that we would like to see. We are unable to handle multiple connections or to automatically load balance. I would like to have a feature that enables us to automatically prepare for load balancing."
"There could be a bit more functions on offer that could make it easier to use."
"Sometimes I find it difficult to manage. Some configurations are difficult for new engineers, for example."
"It would be ideal if the solution had more capacity."
"Cisco IOS Security's monitoring is rather rudimentary and could be improved."
"The configuration should be easier in the solution."
"The scalability needs improvement."
"The user interface could be improved, and the DNS section should be more intuitive."
"While they do have paid options that actually gives better features, for most of the clients, if they tend to take a paid option will instead opt for Fortinet."
"On the customer-side, because I'm a small business, I need a cheaper or free solution option."
"I would like better documentation concerning the provided packages and their integration."
"The solution could be more secure."
"The solution would not be suitable for anything large-scale."
"Given that OPNsense plays a pivotal role as a firewall, safeguarding against various threats, having a reliable backup ensures uninterrupted protection even if unforeseen events impact the primary virtual machine."
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 23rd in Firewalls with 47 reviews while OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while OPNsense is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OPNsense writes "Robust network security and management offering a user-friendly interface, open-source flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, with challenges regarding initial setup and the absence of official support". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiOS, Meraki MX, Netgate pfSense and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas OPNsense is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM and IPFire. See our Cisco IOS Security vs. OPNsense report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
