We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks K2-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I like the most is the configuration and that it's simple, and straightforward to maintain."
"It has very easy management and an amazing ETM configuration."
"It's quite comfortable to handle the FortiGate firewall."
"The threat prevention is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"It is useful for protecting and segregating the internal networks from the internet. Most of our customers also use the FortiGate client to connect to their offices by using the VPN client, and of course, they usually activate the antivirus, deep inspection, and intrusion prevention services. They are also using it for web filtering and implementing various policies dealing with forwardings, NAT, etc."
"LinkGreat firewall capabilities"
"The SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"The most valuable feature must be AnyConnect. We have quite a few customers who use it. It is easy to use and the stablest thing that we have. We have experienced some issues on all our VPN clients, but AnyConnect has been the stablest one."
"I like the user interface because the navigation is very easy, straightforward on your left side pane you have all the sites that you need to browse. Unlike any other firewalls, it's pretty straightforward."
"The most important feature is its categorization because on the site and social media you are unified in the way they are there."
"It protects our network."
"Cisco Secure Firewall is a scalable solution."
"The whole firewall functionality, including firewall policies and IPS policies, is valuable. It has all kinds of functionalities. It has IPS, VPN, and other features. They are doing quite a lot of stuff with their devices."
"Previously, our customers had to always utilize hand-to-hand delivery. Now, they are able to move completely to a secure digital method. They use a strictly dark fiber optics connection from a central location to the endpoint."
"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"
"Everything I could possibly want has already been implanted in the new version."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is the configuration, it is very clear."
"The most valuable features are the intuitive user interface, ease of use, and reporting."
"One of the most valuable features is Palo Alto's firewall management. We find it easier to manage the firewall centrally."
"Palo Alto firewalls are scalable enough. We have about 110 employees in our company, and we are about to expand to 130."
"The most valuable feature is availability."
"We've found the solution offers us good stability."
"This is a very reliable firewall and we have never had problems with it."
"They should improve high CPU and memory usage that occurs."
"The captive portal could be improved."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having better visibility. Palo Alto has better visibility."
"Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve the user interface. There should be more functionality and options through the GUI."
"There are problems with the custom reporting of the unique traffic. The data is there, but it is too difficult for us to extract."
"One issue that I have had is that sometimes I need to monitor the traffic, so I need to filter it according to the user and which user is using it the most. I experience a bottleneck most of the time, particularly at the peak time when the number of contracts and users are at maximum."
"The updates Fortinet provides are sometimes unstable."
"The configuration in Firepower Management Center is very slow. Deployment takes two to three minutes. You spend a lot of time on modifications. Whereas, in FortiGate, you press a button, and it takes one second."
"The stability could be better because we have a lot of issues with the stability of Cisco Firepower."
"One thing that we really would have loved to have was policy-based routing. We had a lot of connections, and sometimes, we would have liked to change the routing depending on the policies, but it was lacking this capability. We also wanted application filtering and DNS filtering."
"The software was very buggy, to the point it had to be removed."
"it is not very user-friendly for the administration."
"This product is managed using the Firepower Management Center (FMC), but it would be better if it also supported the command-line interface (CLI)."
"One feature I would like to see, that Firepower doesn't have, is email security. Perhaps in the future, Cisco will integrate Cisco Umbrella with Firepower. I don't see why we should have to pay for two separate products when both could be integrated in one box."
"Other products are becoming easier to access and configure. They are providing UI interfaces to configure, take backup, synchronize redundant machines, and so on. It is very easy to take backup and upgrade the images in those products. Cisco ASA should have such features. If one redundant machine is getting upgraded, the technology and support should be there to upgrade other redundant machines. In a single window, we should be able to do more in terms of backups, restores, and upgrades."
"It would be nice if it could easily be integrated with Elasticsearch or Nagios."
"The reporting functionality in GlobalProtect needs to be improved."
"I'd like to see more data protection on the system."
"They could improve by providing more features in the solution."
"It would be really helpful to have dashboards that provide information on IOC blockings such as where and how many. It will also be good to know how many hashing files have been reported. It would also be nice to have easy access to this information. Otherwise, it's a painful, manual task."
"I would like to see the threat intelligence capability integrated with other vendors such as Cisco and Forcepoint."
"The URL Filtering module needs to have more categories added to it."
"The technical support, and how they provide it to the client, needs to be improved."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is ranked 28th in Firewalls with 29 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is rated 8.4. 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 Palo Alto Networks K2-Series writes "Easy to implement and manage, and the documentation is good". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks K2-Series 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.
