We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."It has improved our organization with control data."
"Fortinet offers the latest versions to cater to the needs of enterprises."
"The IPS is good. It protect my network from attackers."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"The GUI is good."
"Valuable features include the Web Application Firewall, and it even has DLP (data leak prevention)."
"Fortigate is very scalable to serve our customers' needs. We have scaled already from fifty to more than a hundred instances of Fortinet FortiGate. Around 20 staff are required for deployment and maintenance, mostly engineers."
"It's the VPN side of things that has been most useful for us. It allows us to secure our users even when they're working from home. They are able to access all of our resources, no matter where they are in the world."
"It's quite a capable box for UTM."
"It provides security for our company and users."
"It allowed us to consolidating multiple security devices into a single appliance."
"The most valuable feature that Cisco Firepower NGFW provides for us is the Intrusion policy."
"The most valuable feature for the customers is that they can control what communication is allowed and what is not allowed. That is, they can allow or deny client traffic."
"The features I have found most valuable are the ASA firewalls. I like to have features like most integrated systems in ACI."
"So far, it has been very stable."
"It does give certain protection for everything that is well configured on our McAfee server. We have good protection with it. If we could find a feature and make it work, it would work perfectly, there would be no bugs, and it would be really good."
"Usually, we sell the bundle with the UTM or threat management piece with IPS, IDS. Other providers, such as Palo Alto, are ahead in terms of safe functionality. So, for me, delivering truly safe service is probably something that still needs to be improved."
"It would be nice if backups could more easily migrate between different models."
"They've become quite expensive."
"We had some issues in the beginning while setting it up, but after doing the firmware update, it is working fine."
"If they could extend their fabric towards other vendor environments for integration, that would be great."
"It should be more stable. There should be full integration within Fortinet products themselves as well as with other third-party products. Especially when you're not dealing with SIEM and the correlation of the security box, we want Fortinet to be able to share that information with as many other products as it can."
"The solution could be more secure and stable."
"It should provide better visibility over the network and more information in the form of reports for the end users. Its installation should also be easier."
"Comparing Cisco solution to others, it is expensive, it would be better for it to be cheaper."
"I believe that the current feature set of the device is very good and the only thing that Cisco should work on is improving the user experience with the device."
"This solution could be more granular and user-friendly."
"If the implementation was easier, it would be a lot better for us."
"One of the challenges we've had with the Cisco ASA is the lack of a strong controller or central management console that is dependable and reliable all the time."
"A memory leakage issue which literally freeze the nodes (we have an HA environment). The issue is still not solved and the only recommendation from Cisco is to reboot the node."
"An area of improvement for this solution is the console visualization."
"Its implementation was not straightforward. It was mainly because we were running two projects together."
"Customer support and AV are both lacking and are really hard to come to you when the product is installed. Those are the two major points that they need to work on."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is rated 7.0. 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 McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] writes "For managing multiple MFE firewalls it is incredibly handy but it could be easier for customers to migrate from one version to another. ". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is most compared with .
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.