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.
"I like that they have given me a solution at a fair price."
"A strong point of FortiGate is that the graphical interface is complete and easy to use, especially if we think there is a list of operations that we are able to perform inside."
"The product is very stable, easy to troubleshoot, and configure, so it has reduced the time it takes for support."
"It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"The features that we have found most valuable are the SSL VPN and the User Portal."
"The flexibility and ease of configuration are the most valuable features."
"It's very fast and easy to configure."
"Ease of configuration: It has gotten a lot easier to configure compared to the original Cisco Pix."
"The most valuable feature that Cisco Firepower NGFW provides for us is the Intrusion policy."
"The integration and configuration were pretty straightforward."
"The web interface was easy for me. The configuration is logical, so it's easy to use and easy to understand how to protect, how to open a port, how to manage and how to route a device. That's why I prefer Cisco. It's robust and I never have issues with the hardware. That's why I choose Cisco and not another vendor."
"The most valuable features are the IPsec VPN and web filtering."
"The high-availability features, the VPN and the IPSec, are our top three features."
"The fact that we can use Firepower Management Center gives us visibility. It allows us to see and manage the traffic that is going through the network."
"Cybersecurity resilience has been paramount. Because there is a threat of losing everything if ransomware or another sort of attack were to happen, the cybersecurity resilience has been top-notch."
"Is good at blocking IP addresses."
"The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten."
"The concurrent users are perfect for us."
"I am happy with the EPLS, the radius, and I am happy with the captive portal."
"Good basic firewall features."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"An incomparable stability is achieved with other firewall systems."
"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."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"The pricing could be a bit better, especially when you consider how they have the most basic offering priced."
"It should come integrated or have its own type of network monitor tool in a module. There should just be one package, and you are good to go."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having better visibility. Palo Alto has better visibility."
"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."
"The improvement is related to logs. Instead of the CLI, we should be able to have more insights into the logs of the firewall in the GUI."
"The configuration is an area that needs improvement."
"It should have packets, deep level inspections and controls, like the features which other IPS solutions used to have."
"I wouldn't give them a ten. Nobody is perfect. I'll give them a nine because they help me with any issues I've had."
"I would like it if they made the newer generation a bit simpler. You can do ASA code and FXOS. It is just a bit confusing with the newer generational equipment on what it can do."
"It's mainly the UI and the management parts that need improvement. The most impactful feature when you're using it is the user interface and the user experience."
"The user interface for the Firepower management console is a little bit different from traditional Cisco management tools. If you look at products we already use, like Cisco Prime or other products that are cloud-based, they have a more modern user interface for managing the products. For Firepower, the user interface is not very user-friendly. It's a little bit confusing sometimes."
"You shouldn't have to use the ASDM to help manage the client."
"This product is managed using the Firepower Management Center (FMC), but it would be better if it also supported the command-line interface (CLI)."
"User interface is a little clumsy."
"Needs services on additional features, such as managing inventory and generating reports."
"Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time."
"The GUI could use improvements, though it is manageable."
"Could be simplified for new users."
"Improve analysis of logs and dashboards (control panel) with improved alert functionality."
"The solution could be more user-friendly, and the graphical interface needs some work so that someone without an IT background can use the application. I would like the ability to manage the on-premise appliance from the cloud. When I'm not in the office, it would be great to connect to the pfSense server and administer the network remotely."
"Other solutions provide more scope for growth. For instance, we can have only 10 to 20 employees on VPN, but other solutions can support more users. We also have more capabilities to increase the performance of the solution."
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, KerioControl, Sophos UTM 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.