We performed a comparison between Cisco SD-WAN and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most useful feature is centralized telephony."
"Any technical support we needed was great."
"The product helps to aggregate network links. The tool increases security and makes it possible for you to have remote workers."
"The most valuable features are zero-disk provisioning and link load balancing on an application basis."
"The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN are reliability and scalability."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"It's a complete solution with many security features."
"The solution is great at aggregating the traffic and then sending it in one direction."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I don't have anything bad to say about the product. I absolutely love it."
"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 solution offers sandboxing, which can be integrated at any time."
"The blocking, based on the signal provided, is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The people we deal with is a local partner in Cambodia and we can get good support from them."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"They offer templates that provide detailed reports categorized by user, device, and internal network access."
"Cisco's router and voice gateway has not been available since the launch of SD-WAN."
"Cisco could do more to offer bundling of the SD-WAN and other solutions."
"Since Cisco acquired Viptela, the stability of this solution has given problems since it is quite new."
"The bandwidth limitations would be good to remove, but it is a policy and license situation for Cisco because the cost is very high. It would be good to have OTP implemented with VRF. It can have support for EIGRP Over the Top (OTP) VRF. I saw some limitations in regards to the VRF protocol and the advertisement between VRF configuration. EIGRP Over the Top basically was quite limited with the VRF configuration. If you wanted to do rollback in VRF by using the EIGRP OTP protocol, the formation was not populated across. Cisco got back and confirmed that it is a configuration that I need to wait for until the next release, which is going to happen in one year. Cisco documentation is not the way it used to be before. It just gives an easy way to configure, but it doesn't go into the details of the configuration. The information that you need is there, but sometimes you want to go further and get more information, but the information is quite limited. It would be good to cover a few business cases or configuration cases. They used to be there in the past."
"Cisco products are a little bit complicated, so making them a little bit easier would be an improvement."
"The solution is expensive and could be cheaper."
"The client portal needs to be improved in order to make the solution much better."
"All of the configurations are based on templates, and we need to spend a lot of time doing the templates. It's good because that means that all of the configurations will be equal in the network. However, we need to spend a lot of time implementing the templates and doing the customizations."
"The company should update the URL filtering database. They need to enhance the URL filtering and make it easier to customize."
"It's a complicated firewall. Until you come to know the firewall inducers, most people don't like the firewall because the components for the firewall are a little bit complex. User-friendliness is a little bit tough. It needs to be user-friendly when creating policies, and pushing policies. Committing takes more time compared to Palo Alto."
"The ability to dynamically change policies could be improved."
"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."
"This solution would be improved with the inclusion of custom reporting."
"We feel the product's technical support could be better, as this relates to the solution itself, to the installation of the product, and to having a proper understanding of the case."
"You do need knowledge of the solution in order to set the product up properly."
"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."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 1st in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 86 reviews while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 10th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 41 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "A solution for integrating services to enhance up-time, performance and lower costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Provides decent protection for the LAN but complicated interface". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, VMware SD-WAN, Juniper Session Smart Router and Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform, whereas Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW and Sophos XG. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions 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.
