Compare Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. SonicWall Email Security

Cisco Email Security (ESA) is ranked 1st in Messaging Security with 17 reviews while SonicWall Email Security is ranked 10th in Messaging Security with 4 reviews. Cisco Email Security (ESA) is rated 8.8, while SonicWall Email Security is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Email Security (ESA) writes "Black-listing and white-listing are highly intuitive and easy to do". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall Email Security writes "Good at handling email security and has an easy setup". Cisco Email Security (ESA) is most compared with FireEye Email Security, Fortinet FortiMail and Proofpoint Email Protection, whereas SonicWall Email Security is most compared with Barracuda Email Security Gateway, Cisco Email Security (ESA) and Fortinet FortiMail. See our Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. SonicWall Email Security report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use SonicWall Email Security? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. SonicWall Email Security and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
399,757 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 most valuable features are Advanced Malware Protection, URL filtering, and of course Reputation Filtering.Anti-Spam and Advanced Malware Protection are the most valuable features... and we also have the option to block Zero-day attacks.We're consolidating two to three arrays down to one which means that our data center footprint has decreased by like 90%. So we're saving 90% of our space, and it also is much better on power and everything else in our data center. And on top of that, the performance is much, much better than our older arrays.The most valuable feature is the performance and compression. The most useful tool is CloudIQ.Initially, the most valuable feature for us was the SenderBase Reputation, because that reduced the number of emails that were even considered by the system by a huge number...We like the in-built features, like the email filtering based on the IP and domain. Cisco has its own blacklisted domains and IPs, which is very good. This filters around 70 percent of emails from spam, and we are seeing fewer false positives with this.The most valuable feature is the different content filters we are using, such as DKIM.It has the IMS engine, Intelligent Multi-Scan engine, and it does a good job, right out-of-the-box, of blocking the vast majority of things that should be blocked.

Read more »

The most valuable features are the anti-spam, anti-phishing, anti-virus, and anti-spoofing.This solution provides very good email security that protects us against spamming and malware.The anti-spam aspect of the solution is its most valuable feature.Beside a few issues with specificity in the email protection controls, this product is very good at handling email security.

Read more »

Cons
The reporting functionality needs to be improved.The configuration UI should be made more intuitive. Currently, it takes a while to understand how to do the basic configurations.We've had a couple of little things come up, but for the most part, they've been pretty stable.We have occasionally had hardware problems because we are using an appliance-based solution, but that might change. We may consider going to virtual systems.The solution needs to improve its advanced phishing filters. It is very good at filtering things which have bad reputations. However, when phishing or malicious emails are new or coming from a legitimate source, we don't feel that the solution is working.We would like to see more options for the customization of content filters.It would be nice to have an easier way to check on the health of the system, how stressed these appliances are. Sure, you can do it, but it would be helpful to have an easier way to do it, maybe even at a glance.They could improve the filters. In my time at the company, there were several times we had to contact support to update the filters.

Read more »

A lot of spoofed emails are still coming to the end-user, so the configuration for this option needs to be improved.We would like to see more information on a dashboard about what is happening when it comes to spamming and malware.They need well-trained partners in Nigeria.The technical support from the company is not always very good at solving issues, but they offer access to a good community of users where problems are easily solved.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
It is not that costly. We pay for the solution through a contractor and pay an annual fee.We were using Proofpoint and then we switched to Cisco... reportability was one of the main reasons we switched, but the biggest one was cost. If you can get an equivalent functionality for a better price it's wise to do so. That's what our primary decision came down to: We could get equivalent functionality at a lower price point.There were no other costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.The license was not per user, the license model was per feature. You could choose anti-virus, anti-spam, etc. It was feature-based and charged yearly.Licensing costs depend on how many users there are. It could range between $5 and $7 per month, per user.Pricing depends on your environment and which model you want to buy.In addition to the standard licensing, there is a cost for SMARTnet as well.We do annual licensing for ESA and SMA together, and possibly SmartNet support. Packaged together, the cost is just under $38,000.

Read more »

We have a two-year license subscription and the price is very high.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Messaging Security solutions are best for your needs.
399,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
1st
out of 44 in Messaging Security
Views
9,116
Comparisons
5,638
Reviews
15
Average Words per Review
838
Avg. Rating
8.7
10th
out of 44 in Messaging Security
Views
662
Comparisons
505
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
546
Avg. Rating
7.3
Top Comparisons
Also Known As
IronPort, Cisco Email SecurityDell SonicWALL Email Security Platform
Learn
Cisco
SonicWall
Video Not Available
Overview

Customers of all sizes face the same daunting challenge: email is simultaneously the most important business communication tool and the leading attack vector for security breaches. Cisco Email Security enables users to communicate securely and helps organizations combat Business Email Compromise (BEC), ransomware, advanced malware, phishing, spam, and data loss with a multilayered approach to security.

SonicWALL Email Security Platform offers powerful protection to keep email threats out. And sensitive data in. With innovative protection techniques for both inbound and outbound email plus unique management tools, the Email Security platform delivers superior email protection today while standing ready to stop the new attacks of tomorrow.
Offer
Learn more about Cisco Email Security (ESA)
Learn more about SonicWall Email Security
Sample Customers
SUNY Old Westbury, CoxHealth, City of Fullerton, IndraStar Kay White, Locala Community Partnerships
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Energy/Utilities Company27%
Manufacturing Company13%
Healthcare Company13%
Software R&D Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Energy/Utilities Company32%
Comms Service Provider20%
Software R&D Company16%
Media Company7%
No Data Available
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business33%
Midsize Enterprise17%
Large Enterprise50%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business6%
Midsize Enterprise82%
Large Enterprise11%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. SonicWall Email Security and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
399,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Messaging Security 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.