We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Juniper vSRX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is user friendly, and has all the features you need."
"I appreciate FortiGate's flexibility, which allows for centralized management through FortiManager."
"The integration with Active Directory is one of the good features. Most of the customers are now looking for the Single Sign-on feature. So, being able to integrate Active Directory with the firewall is useful. It is also easy."
"Allows for firewall rules to be programmed and named in a way that makes it “readable”"
"It has very easy management and an amazing ETM configuration."
"The features that we have found most valuable are the SSL VPN and the User Portal."
"FortiGate has a very strong unified threat management system."
"The next-generation firewall is great."
"Valuable features include AnyConnect, double translations, and an independent IPS module."
"Cisco Secure Firewall is a good solution. In some ways, it is a reactive solution and we have it sitting in a whitelist mode rather than a blacklist mode. It seems to work fairly well for us."
"There are some hiccups here and there, but compared to the technical support from other vendors, I have had the best experience with Cisco's technical support. I would rate them at nine out of ten."
"Stability, high availability of services, and very high MTBU were the most valuable features for me."
"We use the solution for deep packet inspection, Internet Edge functionality, IDS, and IDP."
"Malicious URLs are being blocked."
"Its security and filtering are most valuable. Every layer of data that comes into the organization goes through it. After setting up the criteria, it automatically filters the traffic. We don't have to check it often."
"I like the ASDM for the firewall because it is visual. With the command line, it is harder to visualize what is going on. A picture is worth a thousand words."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. There was no problem. The initial deployment took about one hour."
"The hardware is stable."
"The dashboard, customization, API, and pricing are good."
"The product’s quality and performance are better than other vendors."
"The initial setup is pretty simple."
"It's a very powerful solution and the firewalls offer high performance"
"The authentication part is seamless and easy for people."
"This solution works well. Their switches and firewall are good."
"In some cases, its initial setup could be hard for customers."
"In the next release, maybe the documentation on how to use this solution could be improved."
"The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response."
"We would like to see a better training platform implemented."
"The platform's interface could improve."
"There can be more security in hybrid implementations. When a customer has a hybrid environment where some parts are in the cloud, we need a consistent security solution for such scenarios."
"The logging details need to be improved."
"Backup can be improved."
"The usability of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense is an issue. The product is still under development, and the user interface is very difficult to deal with."
"We are replacing ASA with FTD which offers many new features not available using ASA."
"Its configuration through GUI as well as CLI can be improved and made easier."
"It is a good firewall, though not NextGen."
"I would like it to have faster deployment times. A typical deployment could take two to three minutes. Sometimes, it depends on the situation. It is better than it was in the past, but it could always use improvement."
"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 solution has not had any layer upgrades. It does not have layer five and upwards, it only has up to layer four. This has caused some problems for us."
"There used to be information displayed about the packets in a module called Packet Flow, but it is no longer there."
"The GUI really needs a lot of work, and it has got worse with successive version updates."
"The solution should consider improving its licensing policies."
"I would like to see an activity sensor for malicious content or sensor for viruses and malware."
"The user interface could always be better. They could make it simpler and more intuitive."
"We experienced some technical issues during implementation"
"he stability could be improved."
"The security feature must be improved."
"Right now, we are going through issues and problems where the product gets dropped with the connection or during the authentication initial phase. While it could be our problem, we would like to see more stability in this area."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Juniper vSRX is ranked 26th in Firewalls with 30 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Juniper vSRX is rated 7.8. 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 Juniper vSRX writes "Fast with good usability and fairly scalable". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Juniper vSRX is most compared with Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Zscaler Cloud Firewall and OPNsense. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Juniper vSRX 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.