We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Sangfor NGAF 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."Security, SD-WAN, and Streetscape are valuable features."
"Fortinet FortiGate protects against internet-based threats, both internal and external. It is scalable, stable, easy to use, and easy to install."
"It's inexpensive compared to some of the other technology out there."
"One of the valuable features is a standardized OS."
"It's quite comfortable to handle the FortiGate firewall."
"It's an easy solution to set up."
"Fortinet FortiGate appears to be scalable."
"The IPsec tunnels are very easily created, and quite interoperable with devices from other vendors."
"The stability of Cisco ASA is excellent compared to other products on the market. Because of our customer experience as an integrator company, our clients never report any performance problems. We have a good performance reputation with Cisco ASA."
"The most valuable feature is the access control list (ACL)."
"With the pandemic, people began working from home. That was a pretty big move, having all our users working from a home. More capacity needed to be added to our remote VPN. ASA did this very well."
"We are using the Cisco AnyConnect for our end-user VPN with the ASA."
"The feature I find most valuable is the Cisco VPN Interconnection."
"AnyConnect has been very helpful, along with the ability to use LDAP for authentication."
"The remote access, VPN, and ACL features are valuable. We are using role-based access for individuals."
"The best features are stability and scalability."
"The most valuable feature of Sangfor NGAF is its integration."
"You might try Sangfor if you are on a tight budget. The price is affordable, and Sangfor offers a lot of features. We don't have any complaints about Sangfor."
"The price versus value is good because the solution is less expensive than Sophos, Fortinet, or SonicWall."
"It is a stable solution."
"The product is very fast and reliable."
"The built-in features function as intended, providing exceptional value."
"Particularly good in the DPI where we can inspect inbound and outbound traffic."
"While the features are not dissimilar to other brands, configuration is much more simple, which works out great for Indonesian people."
"I would prefer to have more detailed logs within the FortiGate products themselves rather than relying on a separate tool."
"There can be more security in hybrid implementations. When a customer has a hybrid environment where some parts are in the cloud, we need a consistent security solution for such scenarios."
"I would like reporting to be improved and should offer a lot more tools to monitor the products."
"There are some license issues. Not every feature must have a separate license. There must be some of kind synergy between the license so we don't have to pay for every individual license that we would like to have."
"The solution lacks sufficient filtering."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve the user interface. There should be more functionality and options through the GUI."
"The support we receive when we need to upgrade is not satisfactory and has room for improvement."
"If they could extend their fabric towards other vendor environments for integration, that would be great."
"In NGFW, Cisco should be aligned with the new technology and inspection intelligence because Cisco is far behind in this pipeline."
"Changes you make in the GUI sometimes do not reflect in the command line and vice versa."
"Cisco is not cheap, however, it is worth investing in these technologies."
"We have more than one Cisco firewall and it is difficult for me to integrate both on the single UI."
"Cisco ASDM is a problem because it is old."
"The application detection feature of this solution could be improved as well as its integration with other solutions."
"It is my understanding that they are in the process of discontinuing this device."
"The access layer of this solution could be improved in terms of the way the devices interconnect with our network. We need to be able to analyze the traffic between the different interconnection in these areas."
"An area of improvement for Sangfor NGAF could be in the field of reporting and logging."
"The web interface needs to be improved, making it more user-friendly."
"The tool is expensive."
"Lacks consistency in terms of filtering certain websites and applications."
"They need to improve their research team and they need to study their data to analyze it and build the product."
"Sangfor could improve their interface capacity on the 5100 series model and upgrade their hardware from one gig to 10 gig. This would improve the overall throughput."
"The firewall system needs gradual improvements because there are more threats and challenges every day."
"The support offered by the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required. The knowledge levels and response time of the support team need improvement."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 31 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall writes "Highlights and helps us catch Zero-day vulnerabilities traveling across our network". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Netgate pfSense, Check Point NGFW and Fortinet FortiGate-VM. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.