Henry PanTechnical Consulting Manager at a consultancy
KrishnaInfosecManager - Network & Security at a tech services company
Vipin GargCo-Founder at Multitechservers
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable features of Cisco firewalls are the IPS and IDS items. We find them very helpful. Those are the biggest things because we have some odd, custom-made products in our environment. What we've found through their IPS and IDS is that their vulnerability engines have caught things that are near-Zero-day items, inside of our network."
"The IPS, as well as the malware features, are the two things that we use the most and they're very valuable."
"The protection and security features, like URL filtering, the inspection, and the IPS feature, are also very valuable for us. We don't have IT staff at most of the sites so for us it's important to have a robust firewall at those sites"
"We can easily track unauthorized users and see where traffic is going."
"With the FMC and the FirePOWERs, the ability to quickly replace a piece of hardware without having to have a network outage is useful. Also, the ability to replace a piece of equipment and deploy the config that the previous piece of equipment had is pretty useful."
"They wanted to leverage something which is equivalent that can give them the next gen features like application awareness and intrusion protection. So that is a major reason they were looking forward to this. The original ASA firewall did not have these features. This was the major reason the customer moved on to Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD). Now they can go ahead and leverage those functionalities."
"The Firepower+ISE+AMP for endpoint integration is something that really stands it out with other vendor solutions. They have something called pxGrid and i think it is already endorsed by IETF. This allows all devices on the network to communicate."
"Being able to determine our active users vs inactive users has led us to increased productivity through visibility. Also, if an issue was happening with our throughput, then we wouldn't know without research. Now, notifications are more proactively happening."
"The Layer four features are okay and meet my business needs."
"The solution is very stable. When comparing it to other environments, it's actually quite impressive."
"Performance and stability are the key features of this product."
"The solution has many useful features. For example, the solution allows users to create virtual IP addresses."
"Great security and connectivity."
"We secure the entry point to the virtual data center with the firewall."
"The most valuable feature is the integration into the overall cloud platform."
"The solution can autoscale."
"This kind of strategic technology makes it much easier to remove malware and address vulnerabilities quickly."
"The simplicity of the setup is the most valuable feature."
"This solution is very user-friendly and even a non-professional can configure the policies."
"The cloud-based interface makes it easy to manage."
"The most valuable feature is that it scans all of the data for any kind of malware."
"it's user-friendly, not complex."
"The most valuable feature is the intrusion prevention system."
"Great interface and in-built help is very intuitive."
"The worst part of the entire solution, and this is kind of trivial at times, is that management of the solution is difficult. You manage FireSIGHT through an internet browser. I've had Cisco tell me to manage it through Firefox because that's how they develop it. The problem is, depending on the page you're on, they don't function in the same way. The pages can be very buggy, or you can't resize columns in this one, or you can't do certain things in that one. It causes a headache in managing it."
"For the new line of FTDs, the performance could be improved. We sometimes have issues with the 41 series, depending what we activate. If we activate too many intrusion policies, it affects the CPU."
"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."
"We would like to see improvement in recovery. If there is an issue that forces us to do recovery, we have to restart or reboot. In addition, sometimes we have downtime during the maintenance windows. If Cisco could enhance this, so that upgrades would not necessarily require downtime, that would be helpful."
"We had an event recently where we had inbound traffic for SIP and we experienced an attack against our SIP endpoint, such that they were able to successfully make calls out... Both CTR, which is gathering data from multiple solutions that the vendor provides, as well as the FMC events connection, did not show any of those connections because there was not a NAT inbound which said either allow it or deny it."
"I was just trying to learn how this product actually operates and one thing that I see from internal processing is it does fire-walling and then sends it to the IPS model and any other model that needs to be performed. For example, content checking or filtering will be done in a field processing manner. That is something that causes delays in the network, from a security perspective. That is something that can be improved upon. Palo Alto already has implemented this as a pilot passed processing. So they put the same stream of data across multiple modules at the same time and see if it is giving a positive result by using an XR function. So, something similar can be done in the Cisco Firepower. Instead of single processing or in a sequential manner, they can do something similar to pile processing. Internal function that is something that they can improve upon."
"The product line does not address the SMB market as it is supposed to do. Cisco already has an on-premises sandbox solution."
"The central management tool is not comfortable to use. You need to have a specific skill set. This is an important improvement for management because I would like to log into Firepower, see the dashboard, and generate a real-time report, then I question my team."
"This solution is not mature when it comes to handling perimeter traffic like internet browsing."
"We find it's different implementing it region-to-region. It might help if it was universal across all regions."
"The product could be made more customizable."
"The solution doesn't offer the same capabilities of Fortinet. It should offer intrusion prevention and advance filtering. These are two very useful features offered on Fortinet that Azure lacks."
"The interface could be improved, it's not very user friendly."
"There are a number of things that need to be simplified, but it's mostly costs. It needs to be simplified because it's pretty expensive."
"Currently, it only supports IP addresses, so you have to be specific about the IPs that are in your environment."
"Azure should be able to work better as a balancer also, instead of just being a firewall. It should have a wider mandate."
"It would be great if the user can have a portal to check on activities related to their account."
"Their technical support needs improvement. I've been on hold with them for hours waiting for their support."
"The cloud support needs to be improved."
"The weakest point is the technical support because they are difficult to get into contact with."
"It would be helpful if they had a set of standard templates because it would assist in the beginning, when you are just getting started."
"The uploading and downloading of reports should be included."
"The two main areas where this product needs improvement are routing and reporting."
"Lacking network access control, user profiling and analytics dashboards."
"Our subscription costs, just for the firewalls, is between $400,000 and $500,000 a year."
"Cisco's pricing is high, at times, for what they provide."
"The one-time cost is affordable, but the maintenance cost and the Smart Net costs need to be reduced. They're too high."
"We normally license on a yearly basis. The hardware procurement cost should be considered. If you're virtual maybe that cost is eradicated and just the licensing cost is applied. If you have hardware the cost must be covered by you. All the shipping charges will be paid by you also. I don't thing there are any other hidden charges though."
"Cisco pricing is premium. However, they gave us a 50 to 60 percent discount."
"There are additional implementation and validation costs."
"Cisco, as we all know, is expensive, but for the money you are paying, you know that you are also getting top-notch documentation as well as support if needed."
"This product requires licenses for advanced features including Snort, IPS, and malware detection."
"Azure Firewall is more expensive. If Microsoft can make Azure Firewall cheaper, I can see that all clients will think of using it. One client used FortiGate because it is much cheaper. Some clients ask me for Cisco, but in the cloud estimate, I found its cost is the same as Azure Firewall."
"Azure Firewall is quite an expensive product."
"The licensing module is good."
"The Sophos pricing, in general, is better than SonicWall, Fortinet, WatchGuard, or anybody else."
"We paid for our licensing for three years, upfront, and there are no costs in addition to the standard fees."
"The price is cheaper than that of some competing vendors."
"The pricing is flexible. Sophos looks at a country's economy and offers flexible pricing. This is how they have managed to penetrate the market."
"It's approximately $6,000 for each device."
"It is not expensive, it's a reasonable price,"
"The issue of a recurring license is a hassle because every year, we have to subscribe."
"It is not very expensive."
Cisco NGFW firewalls deliver advanced threat defense capabilities to meet diverse needs, from
small/branch offices to high performance data centers and service providers. Available in a wide
range of models, Cisco NGFW can be deployed as a physical or virtual appliance. Advanced threat
defense capabilities include Next-generation IPS (NGIPS), Security Intelligence (SI), Advanced
Malware Protection (AMP), URL filtering, Application Visibility and Control (AVC), and flexible VPN
features. Inspect encrypted traffic and enjoy automated risk ranking and impact flags to reduce event
volume so you can quickly prioritize threats. Cisco NGFW firewalls are also available with clustering
for increased performance, high availability configurations, and more.
Cisco Firepower NGFWv is the virtualized version of Cisco's Firepower NGFW firewall. Widely
deployed in leading private and public clouds, Cisco NGFWv automatically scales up/down to meet
the needs of dynamic cloud environments and high availability provides resilience. Also, Cisco NGFWv
can deliver micro-segmentation to protect east-west network traffic.
Cisco firewalls provide consistent security policies, enforcement, and protection across all your
environments. Unified management for Cisco ASA and FTD/NGFW physical and virtual firewalls is
delivered by Cisco Defense Orchestrator (CDO), with cloud logging also available. And with Cisco
SecureX included with every Cisco firewall, you gain a cloud-native platform experience that enables
greater simplicity, visibility, and efficiency.
Learn more about Cisco’s firewall solutions, including virtual appliances for public and private cloud.
Azure Firewall is a managed, cloud-based network security service that protects your Azure Virtual Network resources. It is a fully stateful firewall as a service with built-in high availability and unrestricted cloud scalability.
Sophos XG Firewall is next gen firewall that is optimized for today’s business, delivering all the protection and insights you need in a single, powerful appliance that’s easy to manage.
Azure Firewall is ranked 19th in Firewalls with 14 reviews while Sophos XG is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 101 reviews. Azure Firewall is rated 7.4, while Sophos XG is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Azure Firewall writes "Good value for your money, good URL filtering, supports intrusion prevention, and is stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos XG writes "Light and stable with excellent real-time control ". Azure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Check Point NGFW and pfSense, whereas Sophos XG is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense, Sophos UTM and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our Azure Firewall vs. Sophos XG 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.