We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Sangfor NGAF 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."Offers good security and filtering."
"The solution is very easy to understand. It's not overly complex."
"I like how we can achieve total integration."
"Their interface is very easy to use, it is without bugs."
"Security management tool that's easy to integrate and easy to work with. No issues found with its stability and scalability."
"We are a visual effects company, and there have been a number of high profile security issues in our industry. This has brought us to a higher standard of security, which our clients are very keen on these days."
"FortiGate's web and URL filtering are unlike any other firewall I've used. The functionality of URL filtering in those solutions is problematic because everything is encrypted, and firewalls can't break that encryption protocol. Fortinet has an SSL proxy, so the encryption is done before the packet ever leaves the FortiGate. The URL filter is definitely one of the most helpful features."
"I like several features that this product has, such as antivirus and internet navigation inspection. It is also simple to use."
"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 stability of Cisco ASA is excellent compared to other products on the market. Because of our customer experience as an integrator company, our clients never report any performance problems. We have a good performance reputation with Cisco ASA."
"Netting is one of the best features. We can modify it in different ways. Site-to-site VPN is also an awesome feature of Cisco ASA. The biggest advantage of Cisco products is technical support. They provide the best technical support."
"One of the most valuable features is the GUI front end, which is very easy to use. But I'm also a command-line guy, and being able to access the device via command-line for advanced troubleshooting is quite important."
"VPN load balancing has been particularly essential for my connections to integrate via multiple time zones."
"The transparency of the single UI to ensure security. A product has to be simple so that an administrator can use it."
"The security features are the most valuable. My customers find the security products very useful because nowadays there are many threats from the internet and other malicious users. The security products really help."
"The primary benefits of using Cisco Secure solutions are time-saving, a robust API, and convenience for the security team."
"It enables us to not only detect but also prevent various types of incoming threats, allowing us to take appropriate corrective actions and exercise control over the network."
"The most valuable feature of Sangfor NGAF is its integration."
"It seems to be a durable, stable product."
"While the features are not dissimilar to other brands, configuration is much more simple, which works out great for Indonesian people."
"In our hospital, Sangfor NGAF works well for us in terms of ensuring confidentiality and availability, which are crucial in the healthcare industry."
"In four steps one can configure the entire firewall."
"The price versus value is good because the solution is less expensive than Sophos, Fortinet, or SonicWall."
"Technical support is very good."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"The cloud features can be improved."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve the logging and reporting. Additionally, the next-generation application's policies should be improved. When they were released they had bugs."
"The search tool needs improvement. It's very difficult to search for policies right now."
"I have to say that the initial setup was complex. The deployment took a few days to get set up. Initially, we were using an IPVanish. We switched to this tool since we thought it would be easier. But it turns out it wasn't easier to set up and run."
"WAN load-balancing could be a lot better at detecting when a link is poor or inconsistent, and not just flat out dead."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"Sometimes, it is not easy to troubleshoot. You need to know where to go. It took me quite awhile. It's like, "Okay, if it doesn't go smoothly here, then go find the documentation." Once you do it, it is not so bad. However, it is sometimes a steep learning curve on the troubleshooting part of it."
"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."
"I have used Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point previously and I prefer the process of everything working together."
"We use the FTD management platform for the boxes. The GUI that manages multiple Firepower boxes could be improved so that the user experience is better."
"The product crashes. We have a cluster of firewalls and we regularly get failovers."
"If I want to activate IPS features on it, I have to buy another license. If I want Cisco AnyConnect, I have to buy another license. That's where we have challenges."
"The integration between the on-prem proxy world and the cloud proxy would benefit us. One single policy setting would make sense."
"The only drawback of the user interface is when it comes to policies. When you open it and click on the policies, you have to move manually left and right if you want to see the whole field within the cell. Checkpoint has a very detailed user interface."
"I would be happy if Sangfor developed a firewall designed specifically for home use, as well as for small businesses such as clinics and so on. A household version of the Sangfor firewall for your personal computer or laptop would be ideal, in my opinion."
"They need to improve their research team and they need to study their data to analyze it and build the product."
"The support offered by the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required. The knowledge levels and response time of the support team need improvement."
"The support for YouTube or the Internet is not enough."
"Sangfor could improve by providing better real-time reporting, as the current reports don't offer the level of detail we need, especially for runtime insights."
"The reporting and log management could be improved."
"The tool is expensive."
"The setup phase is quite complex."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 31 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.0. 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 Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Netgate pfSense, Check Point NGFW and OPNsense. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.