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.
"This is a quality product with ok support, and it is better than the competition we've tried."
"Whenever we raise a complaint with FortiGate, their response and resolution times are minimal."
"The solution is highly scalable because they have devices that can handle a large amount of traffic."
"FortiGate SD-WAN facilitated a smooth transition for our customers between their two internet service providers, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity without any downtime."
"Provides good firewall security and has great VPN features."
"The security fabric is excellent."
"The simplicity of the configuration and the stability of the product are most valuable. The VPN concentrator is very useful."
"The threat prevention is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"I found that setting up rules for HTTPS and SSH access to the management interface are straightforward, including setting the cypher type."
"It's got the capabilities of amassing a lot of throughput with remote access and VPNs."
"The solution offers very easy configurations."
"The solution is pretty easy to deploy."
"Its security and filtering are most valuable. Every layer of data that comes into the organization goes through it. After setting up the criteria, it automatically filters the traffic. We don't have to check it often."
"Sourcefire has been a great addition. The visibility and control have been nice."
"VPN and firewall are good features."
"All the rules are secure and we haven't had a significant malware attack in the five years that we've been using ASA Firewall. It has been a tremendous improvement for our network. However, I can't quantify the benefits in monetary terms."
"The most valuable features of pfSense are the reports, monitoring, filtration, and blocking incoming and outgoing traffic."
"The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box."
"It is effective. We have not had any problems."
"Is good at blocking IP addresses."
"The product’s documentation is good."
"The redundancy and scalability ARE very nice."
"Its scalability is a strong point."
"For everyday tasks, we just get alerts. It's anything that's suspicious, including from our Netgate. So, it's part of how we maintain cybersecurity in our school. This is working alongside our endpoint security solution."
"The web-cache feature which was previously on the FortiGate device, but was deleted with the recent upgrade should be returned. It was a very valuable feature for us."
"I would prefer to have more detailed logs within the FortiGate products themselves rather than relying on a separate tool."
"Fortinet doesn't provide multiple virtual firewalls which would facilitate end users and customers."
"The solution needs to improve its integration with cybersecurity."
"FortiGate support could do some improvements on their IPv6 configuration. Right now it's still in the very early stage for utilizing in an enterprise level network environment."
"With the addition of some features, it is possible that FortiGate can be used in all verticals."
"It should be more stable. There should be full integration within Fortinet products themselves as well as with other third-party products. Especially when you're not dealing with SIEM and the correlation of the security box, we want Fortinet to be able to share that information with as many other products as it can."
"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."
"When comparing the graphical interface of this solution to other vendors it is more difficult to configure. There is a higher learning curve for administrators in this solution."
"The Cisco Firewall UI could be improved."
"Cisco is still catching up with its Firepower Next-Generation firewalls."
"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."
"You have to know the ASA command line very well because not all operations are available in the graphical interface"
"Cisco ASDM is a problem because it is old."
"It would be nice if you didn't have to configure using a command-line interface. It's a bit technical that way."
"The solution's deployment is time-consuming, which should be minimized and made more user-friendly for us."
"More documentation would be great, especially on new features because sometimes, when new features come out, you don't get to understand them right off the bat. You have to really spend a lot of time understanding them. So, more documentation would be awesome."
"My only observation is about the quality of the IPSec logs, which are difficult to interpret and are poor in filters."
"The security could be improved."
"It needs to be more secure."
"The integration of pfSense with EPS and EDS could be better. Also, it should be easier to get reports on how many users are connecting simultaneously and how sections connect in real-time."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"The stability could be improved."
"The usage reports can be better."
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.