We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Sangfor NGAF 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."The dashboard I have found the most valuable in Fortinet FortiGate."
"Fortinet FortiGate's most valuable features are ease of use, flexibility, and most of the configuration we can be done using the GUI. When we compare Fortinet FortiGate with other solutions the firewall policy are very easy to understand."
"The most valuable feature is the FortiManager for centralized management."
"We have been able to offer several services to customers in a single box."
"The ease of setting the solution up is a valuable aspect for us."
"The customization potential is quite impressive."
"The most important feature, normally for small business customers, is link load balancing."
"The simplicity of the product is great. It's very easy to use, which is a compliment we get all the time in terms of feedback."
"The configuration was kind of straightforward from the command line and also from the ASDM. It was very easy to manage by using their software in Java."
"The product is easy to manage and simple. It works with the rest of our Cisco products. You can drop in new ones if you need more performance. The training and documentation provided are good."
"A good intrusion prevention system and filtering."
"It's pretty reliable and allows for isolation capabilities within the network."
"For our very specific use case, for remote access for VPN, ASAs are very good."
"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."
"Very good as a stateful inspection firewall."
"It is extremely stable I would say — at least after you deploy it."
"It's a very simple to use product."
"While the features are not dissimilar to other brands, configuration is much more simple, which works out great for Indonesian people."
"Sangfor NGAF works accordingly with our customers. The solution has good performance, easy to use, and integrates well with the endpoints."
"Technical support is very good."
"The stability of Sangfor NGAF is good."
"It is a stable solution."
"The level of support provided to local companies is good. They transform their application control and other settings according to that country."
"Sangfor has the best capabilities for securing connections, securing web browsers, securing servers, and general threat protection."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"Its customer service could be better."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"One issue that I have had is that sometimes I need to monitor the traffic, so I need to filter it according to the user and which user is using it the most. I experience a bottleneck most of the time, particularly at the peak time when the number of contracts and users are at maximum."
"There could be more integration between the logging and analytical platforms to make it more seamless and integrated."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"The support we receive when we need to upgrade is not satisfactory and has room for improvement."
"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."
"The solution could offer better control that would allow the ability to restrictions certain features from a website."
"It doesn't have a proper GUI to do troubleshooting, so most people have to rely on the command line."
"I would like it if they made the newer generation a bit simpler. You can do ASA code and FXOS. It is just a bit confusing with the newer generational equipment on what it can do."
"I have found that Cisco reporting capabilities are not as rich as other products, so the reporting could be improved."
"I would like it if there was a centralized way to manage policies, then sticking with the network functions on the actual devices. That is probably the thing that frustrates me the most. I want a way that you can manage multiple policies at several different locations, all at one site. You then don't have to worry about the connectivity piece, in case you are troubleshooting because connectivity is down."
"It can probably provide a holistic view of different appliances because many customers do not have only one brand, besides the traditional SNMP protocols, to cover all their devices. There are some specific requirements in terms of configurations or actions that sometimes have to be done in a very manual way because of the different versions or brands in a customer's infrastructure. It could also have some additional analytics capabilities. It has some very interesting ways to monitor the traffic and identify false positives from the architecture and the environment. It would be good if there is a way to patch with some other industry-specific solutions and synchronize some of the information, such as what other customers experience in their operations and probably share some additional information that could be leveraged or shared among the industry. Such information would be something interesting to see. It could have AI capabilities related to how the appliances could benefit from learning the current environment and different exposures."
"I think that the solution can be improved with the integration of application-centric infrastructure. It could be used to have better solutions in one box."
"The product must provide more IPS features."
"The GUI needs to be improved, lacks logic in some areas."
"Sangfor has recently increased their prices."
"The support offered by the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required. The knowledge levels and response time of the support team need improvement."
"The interface and user experience are horrible."
"It does not offer any recommendations on how to mitigate or control attacks."
"The setup phase is quite complex."
"Our experience with its customer support was quite challenging."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 21st in Firewalls with 29 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Sangfor NGAF 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 Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Juniper SRX Series Firewall, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Netgate pfSense, Fortinet FortiOS and OPNsense. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.