Compare Cisco ASA Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco ASA Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
456,812 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"The greatest benefit for the organization is the confidence that we are secured.""Its ability to discover attacks is a valuable feature. All of the other features that have to do with security are good.""I haven't had any major problems so I haven't had to open a ticket with technical support.""The IPS (In-plane switching) is the most valuable feature.""I like the user interface because the navigation is very easy, straightforward on your left side pane you have all the sites that you need to browse. Unlike any other firewalls, it's pretty straightforward.""We have multiple secure internal networks linked with our plants. We are from a oil company, so we have multiple plant areas which need to have restricted network access. Therefore, we are using it for restricting access to the plant area.""The initial setup was completely straightforward.""I would say the Firepower module is most valuable. I'm trying more to transition to this kind firewall. I had to study a little on Palo Alto Networks equipment. There is a lot I have to learn about the difference."

More Cisco ASA Firewall Pros »

"We standardized on the product and got rid of several other types of firewalls from different vendors.""It is very scalable.""The most valuable feature is the ability to deeply analyze the connection or connection type.""One of the things I really like about it is that we have the same features and functions available on the entry-level device (PA-220), as do large corporations with much more costly appliances.""One of the best firewalls on the market.""Good functionality and features.""The basic configuration will only take 15 minutes to set up""The solution is very stable."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pros »

Cons
"There may have been one or two incidences of malicious threats.""Some of the features, like the stability, need to be improved.""In the past though, colleagues have had issues during the upgrade process. The failover didn't work and production was down.""At times the product is sluggish and slow""If I need to download AnyConnect in a rush, it will prompt me for my Cisco login account. Nobody wants to download a client to a firewall that they don't own.""Most of the time, when I try to run Java, it is not compatible with ASA's current operating systems.""We have to rely on Cisco ASDM to access the firewall interface. This needs improvement. Because we have a web-based interface, and it is a lot more user-friendly.""The installation and integration of Cisco ASA with FirePOWER can be improved. The management with Fortigate is easier than Cisco ASA on FirePOWER. The management side of Cisco ASA can be improved so it can be more easily configured and used."

More Cisco ASA Firewall Cons »

"I would like integration with Evident.io and RedLock.""The data loss prevention (DLP) capabilities need to be beefed up.""Overall it is good. It is reliable and easy to understand. However, the monitoring feature could be improved.""The initial configuration is complicated to set up.""The user interface is a bit clumsy and not very user-friendly.""Could also use better customer support.""Customers don't want to buy extra things for extra capabilities""Generating reports is not so easy."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions.""The cost is a big factor for us. This is why we are using it only in our restricted area. They are very much higher than their competitors in the market.""We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement.""Watch out for hidden licensing and incredibly high annual maintenance costs.""I bought a license for three years and it was really affordable.""With AnyConnect, it depends on your license. It depends on the number of concurrent users you want to connect.""This solution might be expensive, but it is economical in the long run.""Some of our customers would be more likely to standardize on Cisco equipment if the cost was lower because a lot of people install cheap equipment."

More Cisco ASA Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice »

"Annually, the licensing costs are too much.""Pricing is yearly, but it depends. You could pay on a yearly basis, or every three years. If you want to add a device or two, there would be an additional cost. Also, if you want to do an assessment, or other similar add-on, you have to pay accordingly for the additional service.""It will be worth your time to hire a contractor to set it up and configure it for you, especially if you are not very knowledgeable with PA firewalls.""Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have.""The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that.""The price of this product should be reduced.""The pricing is competitive in the market.""This is an expensive product, which is why some of our customers don't adopt it."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
456,812 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Answers from the Community
Fedayi Uzun
author avatarPhilippe Panardie
Real User

Well they are two leaders, one from US , another from Israel.


Checkpoint is the first well known  firm to launch firewalls .


Palo Alto is certainly now  the leader, but could be expensive in strong configurations.


He supports very well virtualization and is number one for reporting.


Checkpoint NGFW is strong but under competition for high volumes, referred to a comparable appliance (fortinet for instance), it needs perhaps more technicity to administrate, in spite an amazing choice of blades in the NGFW offer;


In fact the reliability is under shoulder of your partner or integrator and a good definition of needs to have a proper sizing of your equipement 

author avatarreviewer1461459 (Team Lead Network Infrastructure at a tech services company with 1-10 employees)
Real User

There are some major differentiators that make Palo Alto more preferable. First of all Palo Alto's Hardware is FPGA based, which has no parallel. Due to this capability it supports SP3 technology which provides single pass parallel processing architecture. This means PA processes traffic through all the engines i.e. application, IPS and others simultaneously. This improves resiliency and provides exactly the same throughput which committed in PA data sheet. PA has been in the leaders magic quadrant of Gartner for the 7th consecutive time in a row, which shows its block capability is above power. Moreover, it is very user friendly and easy for configure. Palo  Alto provides all routing features plus IPsec tunnels without any license - license subscriptions are only required for security bundles. Palo Alto has on-box (without any additional license or cost) reporting capability that no other firewall has at the moment.


On the contrary, Cisco Firewall and its management center is not stable and lacks user friendly operations.

author avatarKirtikumar Patel
Real User

Palo Alto having more visibilities and control instead of Cisco Firewall.

author avatarUmesh Wadhwa
Real User

Palo alto is the market leader and a company with a very holistic approach to security. Firewalls are its mainstream business,  whereas Cisco basically known as a networking company is trying to be one of the major players in providing security solutions. Things like advantages, disadvatages usage and practices is a very vast topic. Generally companies already having cisco infrastructure tend to choose Cisco firewalls from the integration point of view. Palo Alto firewalls could be more expensive. 

Questions from the Community
Top Answer:  When you compare these firewalls you can identify them with different features, advantages, practices and usage at large. In my opinion, Fortinet would be the best option and l use… more »
Top Answer: They provide DDoS protection and multi-factor authentication. That is a good option as it enables work-from-home functionality.
Top Answer: I have been working with Palo Alto for more than 5 years now and I think I have worked with almost every other firewall platform out there. Palo Alto is my go to firewall for several reasons: Always a… more »
Top Answer: Pricewise Cisco. But PA has better rating.
Top Answer: Palo alto is the market leader and a company with a very holistic approach to security. Firewalls are its mainstream business,  whereas Cisco basically known as a networking company is trying to be… more »
Ranking
3rd
out of 46 in Firewalls
Views
69,068
Comparisons
50,208
Reviews
68
Average Words per Review
593
Rating
8.0
8th
out of 46 in Firewalls
Views
14,112
Comparisons
10,212
Reviews
32
Average Words per Review
592
Rating
8.4
Popular Comparisons
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Firewall, Cisco ASA NGFW, Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls, Cisco ASAvPalo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series
Learn
Cisco
Palo Alto Networks
Overview

Cisco ASA firewalls deliver enterprise-class firewall functionality with highly scalable and flexible VPN 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 ASA can be deployed as a physical or virtual appliance. Flexible VPN capabilities include support for remote access, site-to-site, and clientless VPN. Also, select appliances support clustering for increased performance, VPN load balancing to optimize available resources, advanced high availability configurations, and more.

Cisco ASAv is the virtualized version of the Cisco ASA firewall. Widely deployed in leading private and public clouds, Cisco ASAv is ideal for remote worker and multi-tenant environments. The solution scales up/down to meet performance requirements and high availability provides resilience. Also, Cisco ASAv 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.

Palo Alto Networks' next-generation firewalls secure your business with a prevention-focused architecture and integrated innovations that are easy to deploy and use. Now, you can accelerate growth and eliminate risks at the same time.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA Firewall
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls
Sample Customers
There are more than one million Adaptive Security Appliances deployed globally. Top customers include First American Financial Corp., Genzyme, Frankfurt Airport, Hansgrohe SE, Rio Olympics, The French Laundry, Rackspace, and City of Tomorrow.SkiStar AB, Ada County, Global IT Services PSF, Southern Cross Hospitals, Verge Health, University of Portsmouth, Austrian Airlines, The Heinz Endowments
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm17%
Comms Service Provider14%
Manufacturing Company10%
Computer Software Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider34%
Computer Software Company22%
Media Company5%
Government4%
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider20%
Manufacturing Company13%
Financial Services Firm13%
Computer Software Company13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider28%
Computer Software Company23%
Media Company5%
Government4%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business35%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise39%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business28%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise51%
REVIEWERS
Small Business43%
Midsize Enterprise32%
Large Enterprise25%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco ASA Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
456,812 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Cisco ASA Firewall is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 80 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 41 reviews. Cisco ASA Firewall is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco ASA Firewall writes "Gives us visibility into potential outbreaks as well as malicious users trying to access the site". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "The product stability and level of security are second to none in the industry". Cisco ASA Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall, Meraki MX, Palo Alto Networks WildFire and SonicWall TZ, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, Azure Firewall, pfSense and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series. See our Cisco ASA Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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.