We performed a comparison between Check Point VPN-1 [EOL] and Cisco Secure Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."It's a firewall that secures our internal network. I have been using it since 2013, and I find that most of the features are advanced, and very user friendly."
"One of the valuable features is a standardized OS."
"The solution has very good threat and content filtering switches."
"The most valuable feature is the FortiManager for centralized management."
"The inspection and web security features are most valuable."
"The initial installation is very straightforward."
"Some of the key features of the solution is that it has good reporting, you can receive many details from the connection, for example, clients and website information."
"UTM/NGFW features and FortiCloud for logs and backups are awesome."
"Technical support has been good."
"Its most outstanding feature is content filtering."
"VPN clients are easy to use and deploy."
"The product offers fairly good centralized administration and monitoring with decent capabilities that allow the administrator to have relevent control over devices."
"The stability of the solution is very good. We can see that it gets even better with every release."
"The IPS (In-plane switching) is the most valuable feature."
"The management aspect of the product is very straightforward."
"The ASA 55-x range is a solid and reliable firewall. It secures the traffic for normal purposes."
"The technical team is always available when we have problems."
"I like that it is easy to change the settings."
"Manageability of Cisco ASA. It has a GUI interface, unlike the most of Cisco IOS. For beginners they can "sneak in" and apply the command and see the actual commands that the GUI launches. In addition, Cisco has the reputation regarding security."
"An eight because it's a good security solution. It's more mature than its competitors."
"Quality control on their firmware versions needs improvement. When they introduce new firmware, there tend to be bugs."
"The security of Fortinet FortiGate could improve."
"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."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"Fortinet FortiGate is not very easy to use. The navigation could be improved to make it easier to use."
"If I had any criticism that I would give FortiGate, it would be that they need to stop changing their logging format. Every time we do a firmware upgrade, it is a massive issue on the SIM. Parsers have to be rebuilt. Even the FortiGate guys came in and said that they don't play well in the sandbox."
"The support system could be improved."
"FortiOS is not simple."
"Pricing is sometimes challenging, although it brings a lot of features."
"It should have excellent integration with the other security tools."
"Every time we made a change, the policy took about three minutes to apply, and obviously, when there were emergency changes or changes that we needed that were escalated, they were not modified very, very quickly."
"The reporting from the file or reporting from mobile access needs improvement. The solution, in general, could use better reporting tools."
"One big pain point I have is the ASDM interface because it's Java, and sometimes, it's a bit buggy and has low performance. That's something that probably won't be improved because of backward compatibility."
"The software was very buggy, to the point it had to be removed."
"The use of it has really bogged down our response time for certain problems, given we have to go through AT&T for everything."
"The content filtering on an application level is not as good as other solutions such as Palo Alto."
"The ease of use needs improvement. It is complex to operate the solution. The user interface is not friendly."
"We see a lot of vendors in the market with a lot of niche products. I understand that it's difficult to cover everything, but making it more open for integration with other vendors would be a value add for Cisco."
"Security must be increased when a new user connects over the LAN and an alarm must be generated."
"Setting it up is not as intuitive as other more modern NGFWs."
Earn 20 points
Check Point VPN-1 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls with 4 reviews while Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews. Check Point VPN-1 [EOL] is rated 8.0, while Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Check Point VPN-1 [EOL] writes "Very good IPS, anti-malware, and VPN capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall writes "Highlights and helps us catch Zero-day vulnerabilities traveling across our network". Check Point VPN-1 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.
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.