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."
"Easy to use support and licensing portal as well as activation process."
"The stability and scalability of this solution are satisfactory. Its SD-WAN, VPN, and URL filtering features are very useful."
"It's super reliable. I don't think I've ever had a reliability issue with it."
"It is a safe product."
"The security fabric is excellent."
"LinkGreat firewall capabilities"
"This solution has solid UTM features combined with a nice GUI."
"I love the ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager) which is the management suite. It's a GUI and you're able to see everything at a glance without using the command line. There are those who love the CLI, but with ASDM it is easier to see where everything is going and where the problems are."
"Manageability of Cisco ASA. It has a GUI interface, unlike the most of Cisco IOS. For beginners they can "sneak in" and apply the command and see the actual commands that the GUI launches. In addition, Cisco has the reputation regarding security."
"The most valuable feature is IPS. It's a feature that's very interesting for tackling the most current attacks."
"The IPS (In-plane switching) is the most valuable feature."
"I think that the firewall feature is the most valuable to me as it is one of the oldest features for this solution. We also appreciate how stable the VPN is."
"It's a flexible solution."
"Cisco ASA works very nicely from an administration perspective. The management of the device is very nice. The ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager) is the software that we use and it is very easy to configure using the GUI."
"For our very specific use case, for remote access for VPN, ASAs are very good."
"It is effective. We have not had any problems."
"A valuable feature is that the solution is open source."
"It's a good solution for end-users. It's pretty easy to work with."
"The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location."
"It is a stable solution. It is also easy to install and can be deployed and maintained by one team member."
"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"
"I handle the scanning for the finance department. I recently encountered an issue with the PCL bills, our company bills. I resolved the matter, cleared the bill, and received calls regarding it using pfsense.The user interface is extremely user-friendly, which is why we use it across various plant sites. Our IT representatives at the plants find it easy to use and manage because of its straightforward interface."
"Open source and support are valuable. I have community support."
"In the next release, maybe the documentation on how to use this solution could be improved."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"I'm not sure if it's something that they already have or are developing something, however, we need some dedicated features for container security."
"There is room for improvement related to the logging and reporting aspect."
"The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response."
"It's my understanding that more of the current generation features could be brought in. There could be more integration with EDRs, for example."
"There could be more integration between the logging and analytical platforms to make it more seamless and integrated."
"The solution's deployment is time-consuming, which should be minimized and made more user-friendly for us."
"Web filtering needs improvement because sometimes the URL is miscategorized."
"It is expensive."
"The graphical interface could be improved. From what I have seen, Fortinet, for example, has a nicer GUI."
"The ease of use needs improvement. It is complex to operate the solution. The user interface is not friendly."
"The application detection feature of this solution could be improved as well as its integration with other solutions."
"I think the ASA layer is thin. It's always Layer 3 or Layer 4 source controller and doesn't control the Layer 7 traffic. It's important, and you'll need an additional firewall."
"The access layer of this solution could be improved in terms of the way the devices interconnect with our network. We need to be able to analyze the traffic between the different interconnection in these areas."
"For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model."
"The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection."
"I have been using WireGuard VPN because it is a lot faster and more secure than an open VPN. However, in the latest version of pfSense, they have removed this feature, which is one of the main features that I need. They should include this feature."
"The GUI could use improvements, though it is manageable."
"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."
"When I checked other packages, it seems they use different tools that are installed on the PSS for functionality. They rely on third-party tools, unlike Fortinet, for example, which has its own tools. In comparison, we also use third-party tools on pfSense. For example, we had a situation where we needed a tool to identify authorized users, and when I searched for a solution, I found a third-party tool. However, using such tools may come with additional costs."
"The usage reports can be better."
"They could improve their commercial stance and be more agile when it comes to the commercial pricing of enterprise deals."
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.