We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Hillstone CloudEdge based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are it is one of the most mature firewalls in the UTM bundle."
"It is easy to use and performs very well."
"Security, SD-WAN, and Streetscape are valuable features."
"The user interface is relatively easy. The devices are easy to deploy and figure out when you have experience with other security appliances."
"The solution can scale well."
"Fortigate's most valuable feature is that it doesn't need a push policy when writing rules."
"I like Fortinet FortiGate's antispam filter, SPN, and clustering features."
"The solution is stable."
"The most important point is the detection engine which is now part of the next-generation firewalls and which is supported by Cisco Talos."
"If you compare the ASA and the FirePOWER, the best feature with FirePOWER is easy to use GUI. It has most of the same functionality in the Next-Generation FirePOWER, such as IPS, IPS policies, security intelligence, and integration and identification of all the devices or hardware you have in your network. Additionally, this solution is user-friendly."
"Firewall help with cybersecurity resilience. I really like this Cisco product. It's user-friendly. I don't like some other vendors. I've tried those in the past. Cisco is pretty easy. A caveman could do it."
"We use the solution for deep packet inspection, Internet Edge functionality, IDS, and IDP."
"Feature-wise, we mostly use IPS because it is a security requirement to protect against attacks from outside and inside. This is where IPS helps us out a bunch."
"The information coming from Talos does a good job... I like the fact that Cisco is working with them and getting the information from them and updating the firewall."
"This solution made our organization more secure and gave us better control."
"The ASA 55-x range is a solid and reliable firewall. It secures the traffic for normal purposes."
"The solution is very easy to download and configure. The initial setup was very easy. The technical support is very good."
"The initial setup and configuration are not intuitive and require training."
"I would like to see improvements in the product's application rules."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"The feedback that I have received is that the performance could be better, and the user experience is not as good compared to a previous solution we used. It could be more user-friendly. Of course, it still works fine for our operations."
"Scalability is one of the disadvantages. When it comes to scalability, you have to actually change the box. If you want to upgrade it, you need to actually change the existing box and probably you take the system off to other sites."
"Difficult to add or define, and not that easy to configure and manage."
"It would be ideal if they had some sort of GUI interface for troubleshooting and diagnostics."
"This product needs to have an analysis feature, rather than having the analysis done through the integration of a different product."
"I would like it if there was a centralized way to manage policies, then sticking with the network functions on the actual devices. That is probably the thing that frustrates me the most. I want a way that you can manage multiple policies at several different locations, all at one site. You then don't have to worry about the connectivity piece, in case you are troubleshooting because connectivity is down."
"The licensing needs simplification."
"It is hard to control the bandwidth of end-users with a Cisco Firewall. That is the main issue I've faced. I used Mikrotik for many years for this very reason. Mikrotik has the option to set a bandwidth restriction for a single IP or complete segments. Cisco should add this option to their firewall."
"I think that the solution can be improved with the integration of application-centric infrastructure. It could be used to have better solutions in one box."
"Some of the features, like the stability, need to be improved."
"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."
"If Cisco could stop rebranding, combine all the CLIs/GUIs, and give a consistent experience, this would be great."
"It would be nice if you didn't have to configure using a command-line interface. It's a bit technical that way."
"The solution needs more granular level reporting on system usage."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Hillstone CloudEdge is ranked 32nd in Firewalls with 1 review. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Hillstone CloudEdge is rated 10.0. 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 Hillstone CloudEdge writes "A stable solution that is easy to configure". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Hillstone CloudEdge is most compared with .
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.