We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center and Palo Alto Networks Panorama based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like its system management and filtering options as a layer seven firewall."
"Cisco's support and services are far superior to any other security product in Pakistan."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the intrusion prevention system."
"One of the most valuable features of Cisco Secure Firewalls is their seamless integration with other Cisco products."
"The solution is quite scalable."
"The product's user interface is very easy to use and convenient."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable features are the Virtual Private Network and the Electronic Control Lists."
"It's easy to deploy any software or policies."
"Panorama is very easy, easy to administrate, and easy to control."
"Especially for big, worldwide clients, one of the most valuable features is being able to create some rules to place on the security groups."
"This is an efficient solution."
"The interface is very easy to use. You can do most jobs from one single console."
"Palo Alto technical support is excellent."
"Panorama enables you to provision all your firewalls and other things as a cluster. It is quite useful for that."
"On the one or two occasions that I had to make use of technical support, I felt it to be pretty good."
"Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center needs to reduce its price."
"It's not very user-friendly and can be somewhat disorganized."
"Improving the product by incorporating SD-WAN functionality would be highly beneficial, especially for remote offices with limited server and Internet availability."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"Some duplicated values and security standards are not working in some high-application protocols with Cisco's next-generation firewalls."
"The interface is an area that could be improved."
"The solution could improve the number of ports available and load balancing."
"Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center's logging functionality could be improved."
"Its scalability can be improved. It is too expensive to scale it in the way Palo Alto wants us to scale. Scalability is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives. It is too expensive to scale. Its redundancy also requires improvement, but it seems that in the latest version, redundancy is improved, and you can have more than two devices in an HA pair. So, they are heading in that direction. It would be good if they combine their dynamic list functionality in a much better way with Panorama and include it as out-of-the-box functionality. Palo Alto supports the dynamic list functionality for some basic threats, but there is a lot of scope for improvement."
"The product does need a bit of configuration. It's not quite ready to go out of the box."
"Lacking in speed and reliability."
"The notification and alerting system could be improved."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be better."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama has some bugs that could be fixed."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"My company's getting whatever it needs from Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud, there's an issue with CPU management, and that's an area for improvement. Though the normal data traffic doesn't go through the management interface, whenever there's an increase in the throughput, CPU management becomes high. If you increase the load, CPU management spikes, and it's what needs to be taken care of in Palo Alto Networks Panorama."
More Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is ranked 7th in Firewall Security Management with 19 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 80 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center writes "A stable and reasonably priced product that protects organizations from malware". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Built-in proxy with the ability to maintain your own policies". Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, FireMon Security Manager and Cisco Defense Orchestrator, whereas Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud and Tufin Orchestration Suite. See our Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.
