Cisco Firepower NGFW Previous Solutions

Lead Network Administrator at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees
The previous usage was with an ASA that had FirePOWER services installed. View full review »
IT Infrastructure Specialist at RANDON S.A
For our remote sites we didn't use a specific security platform. We had the Cisco router itself and the protection that the Cisco router offers. But of course you can't compare that with a next-gen firewall. But here in our headquarters, we currently use Palo Alto for our main firewall solution. And before Palo Alto, we used Check Point. The decision to use Cisco was because Cisco could offer us an integrated platform. We could have only one router at our remote sites which could support switch routing with acceleration, for IP telephony and for security. In the future we also intend to use SD-WAN in the same Cisco box. So the main advantage of using Cisco, aside from the fact that Cisco is, course, well-positioned between the most important players in this segment, is that Cisco could offer this solution in a single box. For us, not having IT resources at those remote sites, it was important to have a simple solution, meaning we don't have several boxes at the site. Once we can converge to a single box to support several features, including security, it's better for us. The main aspect here is that if we had Fortinet or Check Point or Palo Alto, we would need another appliance just to manage security, and it wouldn't be integrated with what we have. Things like that would make the remote site more complex. We don't currently have a big Cisco firewall to compare to our Palo Alto. But one thing that is totally different is the fact that Cisco can coexist with the router we have. View full review »
Dave Cooper
Network Engineer at CoVantage Credit Union
We've been with Cisco and haven't had anything else yet. We haven't had a desire to move in a different direction. We've stayed with it because of how good it is. We were initially introduced to Firepower by a consultant. At that time, it was for the web filtering because the web filtering we had was awful. We were using Sophos. Without getting too derogatory, it was just awful. There was no alerting and it was very hard to manage, whereas this is really easy to manage. With Cisco, it was very easy to set up content groups, to allow some users to get to some stuff and other users to not get to it. That's where it really started. There weren't any pros to Sophos that weren't in Firepower. We got rid of Sophos. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Cisco Firepower NGFW. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
425,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Security Architect
In our company, we have used another firewall which we developed based on FreeBSD. I, personally, used to work with Juniper, Check Point, and Fortinet. I used Fortinet a lot in the past. If you use the device only for pure firewall, up to Layer 4, not as an application or next-gen firewall, Fortinet is a good and cheaper option. But when it comes to a UTM or next-gen, Cisco is better, in my opinion. FortiGate can do everything, but I'm not sure they do any one thing well. At least with Cisco, when you use the IPS feature, it's very good. View full review »
Al Faruq Ibna Nazim
Head of Technology at BDPEER Ltd.
We previously used Cisco ASA as a firewall. View full review »
Girish Vyas
Architect - Cloud Serviced at NTT Global Networks
We did previously use a different solution. They had two different solutions. One was Cisco ASA itself and before that, they used Check Point. We are a Cisco company and that's the reason they are moving from one Cisco product to another Cisco product, which was better than the previous one. So, that was a major reason for the switch. I would say the other vendors are improving. This company was just Cisco oriented so they wanted something Cisco. View full review »
Maharajan S
Associate Vice President - IT Infrastructure at Navitas Life Sciences
We used Fortinet and that product was coming to end of life. We had been using it continuously for seven years, then we started to experience maintenance issues. Also, we previously struggled to determine who were all our active users, especially since many were VPN users. We would have to manually determine who was an inactive user, where now the process is more automated. It also had difficult handling our load. View full review »
Henry Pan
Technical Consulting Manager at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
We also use Palo Alto, Check Point, Fortinet, Juniper, and Microsoft. Cisco came into firewalls much later. I would say they're top ten but they're not number one yet. They need to do more work. Cisco does better than the smaller players. The best firewall option is Palo Alto. Considering the expertise and the way they detect an advanced attack, Palo Alto is better than Cisco. View full review »
Senior Data Scientist & Analytics at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
We previously used ASA, which is a regular firewall. We switched to Firepower because it has a lot of features. It is one of the best firewalls in the world so we shifted to Firepower. View full review »
IT Specialist at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
Before FirePOWER we were using the ASA. View full review »
Sikander Ali
IT Infrastructure Engineer at Atlas Group
Before the Firepower I was using a traditional firewall, the ASA 5510. We went to the Firepower because the 5510 did not have port security, anti-malware protection, or IDS/IPS. I have seen a lot of events using the Firepower: vulnerability events, countries, and IPs. As a result, I feel I am secure when compared with other firewalls. With my previous firewall, I didn't have the option of blocking a country, website, or IP. View full review »
Syed Khalid Ali
Senior Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
I did use and deploy different firewall solutions for various customers. But every customer has his own pain points. For example, for one of the customers, he was purely looking for URL filtering. We went with Sangfor IAM in that case. They have a very strong focus on application and URL filtering and user behavior management. Plus, reporting was very extensive. View full review »
Ali Abdo
Technical Manager at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
We were previously using Cisco ASA without Firepower. We switched to Cisco Firepower because Firepower has more features, like malware inspection, and more possibilities with identity management. View full review »
Information Systems Manager at a non-profit with 1-10 employees
We were using SonicWall before. View full review »
Assistant Manager (Infrastructure) at SISTIC
Asst.Manager IT at a manufacturing company with 501-1,000 employees
We have been using Cisco for a long time, various models. We had PIX, then ASA. We were quite comfortable with the performance, it never failed. But our old solution was coming to end-of-life. Also, this is able to more block more threats from the application layer, etc. The most important criteria when selecting a vendor are * reputation * technology * features * cost. View full review »
Gerald Zauner
Data Center Architect at Fronius International
We chose Cisco because it had the full package that we were looking for. View full review »
Pablo Torrejon
Support Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
We started with Cisco Firepower. View full review »
Network Engineer at IT Security
I worked with Check Point, but Cisco Firepower is better. It was an easy transfer to this solution. We chose Cisco because of its trustworthy reputation. They're a big, recognized brand. The most important criteria that we consider when evaluating a solution are performance, administration, and price. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Cisco Firepower NGFW. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
425,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.