We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall vs. pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Cisco Secure Firewall and pfSense come out about equal in this comparison. Cisco ASA Firewall has a slight edge when it comes to service and support, but pfSense has an edge when it comes to pricing.
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiGate was straightforward."
"User-friendly and affordable security solution that's recommended for SMB customers. This solution has good technical support."
"The SD-WAN function is very developed. It has SD-WAN functionality with security features in one device. We can manage from one single console SD-WAN and the security policy."
"It enables our organization to become more productive. Also, it protects our NEtWare from viruses and malware."
"The simplicity of the product is great. It's very easy to use, which is a compliment we get all the time in terms of feedback."
"Using this product makes the VPN seamless and almost invisible to me in the sense that I don't have to think about it."
"The performance is good."
"This is an easy solution to deploy."
"The TAC is always very helpful. We pay for Tier 1 support, so we get whatever we need from them. They always give us a solution. If they can't give us an answer that day, they get back to us within at least 24 hours with a solution or fix. I have never had a problem with the TAC. I would rate them as 10 out of 10."
"Cisco's technical support is the best and that's why everybody implements their products."
"Its VPN and ASN features are very stable."
"Implementing Cisco Secure Firewall has saved us time because we rely on most of the out-of-the-box signatures. It has reduced the time and effort spent in configuration within the security network."
"The management aspect of the product is very straightforward."
"The protection and security features, like URL filtering, the inspection, and the IPS feature, are also very valuable for us. We don't have IT staff at most of the sites so for us it's important to have a robust firewall at those sites"
"Because of the deeper inspection it provides we have better security and sections that allow users broader access."
"Its Snort 3 IPS has better flexibility as far as being able to write rules. This gives me better granularity."
"Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it."
"It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service."
"Its reliability and cost-effectiveness stand out."
"The performance and functionality are good."
"It is very easy to use. The interface is quite understandable. There is a good community, and I can take over at any time I want. If there is anything wrong with it, I could just reinstall the whole thing and start all over again, and I'll be up again in less than a few minutes"
"What I found most valuable is the cost of the platform, the flexibility of the platform, and the fact that the ongoing fees are not there as they are with the competitor. Some people may think you're taking a risk with using Opensource. I think it just provides the end user, specifically for us small, medium business providers of services, the flexibility we need at the right cost to provide them a higher end, almost enterprise type service."
"It has a good web cache. I used to use a DHCP server and DNS server. For my company, I use pfSense as a load balancing application."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"While FortiGate is cheaper than most other solutions, we're seeing increased license renewal costs. Most of our clients are asking for more significant discounts because the price is going up."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"Compared to some other products, the DLP is not at par for the moment."
"The UTM filtering needs improvement."
"The performance and speed are aspects of the solution that could always be improved upon."
"It can be a little bit more user-friendly in terms of policy definition and implementation. It seems a little bit complicated, and it could be simplified."
"They have to just improve its performance when we enable all UTM features. When you enable all the features, the performance of FortiGate, as well as of Sophos and SonicWall, goes down."
"Vulnerability scanning could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in the stability or software quality of the product. There were a few things in the past where we had a little bit of a problem with the product, so there is room for improvement."
"Other firewalls, upgrading is a very easy task; from the graphical user interface, you just need to import the firmware versions into it and install it. In this firewall, you need to have a third-party solution in both. It's a process. It's a procedure, a hard procedure, actually, so there is no straightforward procedure for upgrading."
"The solution is overcomplicated in some senses. Simplifying it would be an improvement."
"The stability is not the best."
"In the next release, I would like to see the VPN and UTM features included."
"I'm working on a slightly older version, but what it needs is a better alert management. It's pretty standard, but there's no real advanced features involved around it."
"The virtual firewalls don't work very well with Cisco AnyConnect."
"When we first got it, we were doing individual configuring. Now, there is a way to manage from one location."
"The solution’s interface must be improved."
"In terms of areas of improvement, the interface seemed like it had a lot. The GUI interface that I had gotten into was rather elaborate. I don't know if they could zero in on some markets and potentially for small, medium businesses specifically, give them a stripped-down version of the GUI for pfSense."
"The solution requires a lot of administration."
"The security could be improved."
"Perhaps the documentation is not clear and because it is supported in the community there is no basic documentation."
"The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability."
"Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time."
"If you want to take advantage of all of the solution's options, you need to have a bit of a technical background. It's not for a layperson."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. 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 Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Meraki MX, Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Juniper SRX Series Firewall, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Netgate pfSense 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.