We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security and Zyxel Unified Security Gateway 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."The most valuable feature is the VDOM, which allows the customer to have multiple firewalls in a single campus."
"Anti-Spam web content filterinG."
"The solution is highly scalable because they have devices that can handle a large amount of traffic."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is load balancing. It can provide central management and VPNA. Additionally, it has enhanced our security environment."
"The base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"The most valuable features of the solution are SD-WAN, filtering testing applications, web filtering, and the new VPN."
"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."
"Fortigate represents a really scalable way of delivering perimeter network security, some level of layer 7 security, WAF, and also a way to create a meshed ADVPN solution."
"Technical support for this solution is very good."
"The Intrusion Firewall is a valuable feature."
"Cisco Technical Assistance Center works on a follow-the-sun concept and gives real 24x7 customer support, which is a great advantage when you have a service contract with them."
"The VPN was valuable for us because more people are working from home. It has a lot of reporting and easy-to-use management tools."
"In Pakistan, we only use Cisco because they have good local support infrastructure. Huawei and Fortinet don't offer direct support in Pakistan."
"What I have used the most and received the most benefit from is the IPsec technology."
"We are able to filter a lot of traffic especially when a lot of the traffic is in layer 7."
"Completely integrates branch offices with perimeter security."
"The solution can scale well."
"This is a capable appliance and the standard features work well for us."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from web filtering, malware protection, and antivirus."
"The customization could be improved. Cisco, for example, is much better at this. They need to work to be at least as good as they are."
"It should have a better pricing plan. It is too expensive. It should also have a more granular view of the attack. I don't have FortiAnalyzer, and it is difficult for me to have a complete view when there is an attack on my server."
"With FortiGate, the main complaint that I have heard is about the technical support."
"Some of the features in the graphical user interface do not work, which requires that we used the command-line-interface."
"The way everything is set up could be easier. Currently, people need a lot of experience and knowledge to administer it and to link it to devices."
"It can be a little bit more user-friendly in terms of policy definition and implementation. It seems a little bit complicated, and it could be simplified."
"It is quite new for us, and we need to go more in-depth into the monitoring tools. It provides different features that we need to do what we want. So far, it is okay for us. In terms of improvement, in the future, they can provide a faster implementation of features. Some of the features are first available in other solutions. Fortinet sometimes takes a little bit longer than other solutions, such as Check Point, to implement new features."
"Fortinet needs more memory to save the log files. We need it to save the logs on the hardware and not in the cloud. I know this feature is available in FortiCloud, but if we need this log locally, it is not available."
"We cannot directly upgrade the system. The tool's deployment is also very difficult in legacy environments. The tool needs to have bigger ports as well."
"There's a technology called SD-WAN that we would like to see. We are unable to handle multiple connections or to automatically load balance. I would like to have a feature that enables us to automatically prepare for load balancing."
"The configuration should be easier in the solution."
"The solution is complex and can be more user-friendly."
"I think they should bring back remote VPN for users."
"Sometimes I find it difficult to manage. Some configurations are difficult for new engineers, for example."
"Cisco is a scalable product, but it is expensive compared to other vendors."
"There could be a bit more functions on offer that could make it easier to use."
"Although manageable, the user interface is a little bit slow and could be improved."
"The product has some scalability and data management issues where improvements are required."
"Sometimes it reboots when you least expect it, and that's the main issue."
More Zyxel Unified Security Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 22nd in Firewalls with 47 reviews while Zyxel Unified Security Gateway is ranked 10th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 3 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while Zyxel Unified Security Gateway is rated 6.0. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zyxel Unified Security Gateway writes "Offers good anti-spam and web filtering features but needs to improve in the area of scalability". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Meraki MX, Fortinet FortiOS, Netgate pfSense and OPNsense, whereas Zyxel Unified Security Gateway is most compared with Netgate pfSense, OPNsense, Sophos XG, WatchGuard Firebox and SonicWall TZ. See our Cisco IOS Security vs. Zyxel Unified Security Gateway 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.
