We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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."Their interface is very easy to use, it is without bugs."
"Some of the valuable features are the firewall, IPS, web filter, and gateway capabilities. Additionally, it is easy to use and flexible."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiGate was straightforward."
"The usage in general is pretty good."
"This is an easy solution to deploy."
"The secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"Its stability is the most valuable."
"The multi-tenancy feature is most valuable. It integrates very well with FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer."
"We find the product to be stable and reliable in terms of performance."
"Forcepoint's stability is satisfactory, for the most part."
"When our customer needs some optimization, along with performance and security. If they want everything in one package, I recommend Forcepoint because they have everything."
"The most valuable feature is controlling the traffic and the logging. They have real-time logins for traffic logs. Troubleshooting was very easy for me."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"One of the most valuable features is having the ability to cluster multiple firewalls even if they are different versions."
"I like the IPS. IPS is the master feature. I depend on the firewall and sandbox."
"Forcepoint is a good, stable solution."
"I like the sandbox feature, and it's very good. It kills each malware deployment in the sense of signatures within five minutes. So, we can secure our network and infrastructure very well within the stipulated time. The WildFire functionality is very good because a few files are also getting blocked. It's critical as malware attacks are also getting ignored, and the logging is very well maintained in this firewall. The most valuable solutions in this field are application-based firewalls. That is the main criteria of the firewall and functionality. We can get all the logs related to this and each and every packet. I like that the firewall is working as an application. The application-based entity we have deployed is well maintained and working very well. We were able to find lots of vulnerabilities when we deployed it, but we could not disclose all. But there were vulnerabilities we could block by updating the firewall and taking actions on clientside machines. So, we got to know that we have lots of vulnerabilities inside the organization too, and we took lots of steps and resolved the number of vulnerabilities. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is an all-in-one solution. It provides every entity log, which is a very good functionality of this firewall. It gives every packet and aspect that the firewall is performing through its logs, and it does it very well. This firewall's unified platform helped eliminate multiple network security tools. If anyone uses P2P sites, cryptocurrency websites, or any illegal sites, we can block it easily. It gives us a proper alert for these kinds of sites, and it properly secures our network. Monitoring is the best thing we are doing here, and we can block this kind of vulnerability as soon as it comes to us."
"A feature introduced by Palo Alto with the version 10-OS is embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. Machine learning analyzes the network traffic and detects if there is any usual traffic coming from outside to inside. Because of Palo Alto, organizations detect around 91% of malicious attacks using machine learning. The machine learning helps customers by implementing firewalls in critical and air gap areas so there is no need to integrate with the cloud sandbox."
"Most of the features in Palo Alto are very valuable."
"With its single pane of glass, it makes monitoring and troubleshooting a bit more homogeneous. We are not looking at multiple platforms and monitoring management tools. It is more efficient from that perspective. It is more of a common monitoring and control system for multiple aspects of what used to be different systems. It provides efficiency and time savings."
"The solution does a great job of identifying malicious items and vulnerabilities with URL filtering."
"Good functionality and features."
"With App-ID, we can identify exact traffic. Even if someone tries to fool the firewall with a different port number, or with the correct port number, Palo Alto is able to identify what kind of traffic it is."
"Palo Alto NGFW provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is very useful. This prevents us from having to go to a lot of different systems, and in some cases, many different systems in many different regions, because we are a global company with 60 remote offices around the world in 30 different countries. Its centralized platform is really what we look for in all services, whether it be security or otherwise."
"I would like reporting to be improved and should offer a lot more tools to monitor the products."
"This product needs to have an analysis feature, rather than having the analysis done through the integration of a different product."
"The platform's interface could improve."
"When we cluster the two Fortinet FortiGate boxes together we have some issues."
"In the next release, maybe the documentation on how to use this solution could be improved."
"The solution lacks sufficient filtering."
"We had some issues in the beginning while setting it up, but after doing the firmware update, it is working fine."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"The optimization is not really ready. If you want very good optimization, you have to add it to the network."
"Configuration is not easy because it has an old-fashioned interface. The configuration interface is highly complex, and it's been the same for years. They have to change the interface."
"They need to work on stability, it has not been the best in our experience."
"Management could be better. They can improve the management. I think all our customers can't accept firewalls that have standalone management. So, they prefer Fortinet or Palo Alto. But overall, inspection and other features are working fine."
"They need to improve their alerts."
"Its interface is complex when compared with a firewall like FortiGate. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall needs a management console, whereas FortiGate doesn't need any console. When you have a few devices, a console is not really necessary. It's good to have a private console only when you have a lot of devices."
"The interface is complicated. It's difficult to locate all the necessary menus and functions."
"Forcepoint would be improved if there were more training available."
"The only area I can see for improvement is that Palo Alto should do more marketing."
"A major concern is making the licensing more accessible to enable small municipalities to afford and manage their own systems independently."
"I think they need to have a proper hardware version for a smaller enterprise. We had to go to a very high-end version which is very expensive. If we chose the lower-end version, it would not meet our goals. A middle-end is missing in its portfolio."
"Support should be improved, wait times can be long."
"PA-220 Next-Generation Firewall would be perfect if it has spam filtering."
"I would like to see better third-party orchestration so that it is easier for the team to work with different products."
"Palo Alto could do better with integrating the Palo Alto Next-Gen Firewall with SD-WAN. The biggest issue with Palo Alto is that they are expensive. They are very expensive for what they offer. They should improve their pricing."
"When there was change from IPv4 to IPv6, some of the firewalls still didn't support IPv6. In North America, we have seen most customers are using IPv6, as they are getting the IPv6 IPs from their ISPs. Sometimes, when they go through the firewall, it denies the traffic."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 25th in Firewalls with 41 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 164 reviews. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Provides decent protection for the LAN but complicated interface". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW, Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense and Cisco SD-WAN, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Netgate pfSense. See our Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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.