We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks K2-Series 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 GUI is good."
"It is easy to use and performs very well."
"We use the FortiGate Sandbox to detect zero-day vulnerabilities, such as anomalies or malware, that are unknown and have not yet been discovered."
"The CLI and GUI do a good job of putting a lot at your fingertips."
"FortiGate has a very strong unified threat management system."
"The features that prevent internet connections, the filtering are the most valuable because we did not have any internet protection before."
"The solution is stable."
"A strong point of FortiGate is that the graphical interface is complete and easy to use, especially if we think there is a list of operations that we are able to perform inside."
"Application inspection, network segmentation, and encrypted traffic detection or encrypted traffic analysis (ETA) are valuable for our customers."
"The VPN is our most widely used feature for Cisco Secure Firewall. Since we were forced into a hybrid working situation by COVID a few years back, VPN is the widely used feature because everybody is working remotely for our agency. So it came in very handy."
"If you have a solution that is creating a script and you need to deploy many implementations, you can create a script in the device and it will be the same for all. After that, you just have to do the fine tuning."
"The product is quite robust and durable."
"The most valuable features are the provision of internet access, AnyConnect, and VPN capabilities."
"Simple to deploy, stable."
"Even in very big environments, Cisco comes in handy with configuration and offers reliability when it comes to managing multiple items on one platform."
"Cisco ASA NGFW significantly improves our bank. It protects any high-value products that we use from hackers, viruses, malware, and script-bots. It gives us metrics on network traffic as well as what kind of attacks we are getting from the outside."
"Overall, this is a very simple and very effective firewall, and I am satisfied with it."
"It is a stable solution."
"The solution is reliable and scales well."
"Palo Alto has a unique solution for DNS security, which is very good."
"The scalability of the product is quite high."
"This firewall is very good for our customers because they don't have to write their own rules for adding an application."
"It caters to typical use cases across various technologies. MDR and XDR, for example, focus on user and endpoint protection. It's pretty straightforward."
"The IPS system is the best in the field."
"We'd like more management across other integrations."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve the logging and reporting. Additionally, the next-generation application's policies should be improved. When they were released they had bugs."
"Reporting is limited to providing an external appliance for improving the reporting capabilities of the FortiAnalyzer. It does not offer a central management and is also sold separably as an appliance."
"Performance and technical support are the main issues with this solution."
"The way everything is set up could be easier. Currently, people need a lot of experience and knowledge to administer it and to link it to devices."
"The support from Fortinet FortiGate could improve. They are not easily accessible when we need them. They could improve their response time."
"With FortiGate, the main complaint that I have heard is about the technical support."
"MTBF: Hardware failure is more common when compared to SonicWall or Cisco ASA."
"Changes you make in the GUI sometimes do not reflect in the command line and vice versa."
"One of the problems that we have had is the solution requires Java to work. This has caused some problems with the application visibility and control. When the Java works, it is good, but Java wasn't a good choice. I don't like the Java implementation. It can be difficult to work with sometimes."
"Security must be increased when a new user connects over the LAN and an alarm must be generated."
"FirePOWER does a good job when it comes to providing us with visibility into threats, but I would like to see a more proactive stance to it."
"As it’s a GenX firewall, expertise for both implementation and troubleshooting the pain points can be a challenge. This could be a concern when companies are thinking about buying this product."
"It is a good firewall, though not NextGen."
"One thing that we really would have loved to have was policy-based routing. We had a lot of connections, and sometimes, we would have liked to change the routing depending on the policies, but it was lacking this capability. We also wanted application filtering and DNS filtering."
"One of my colleagues is using the firewall as an IPS, but he is worried about Firepower's performance... With the 10 Gb devices, when it gets to 5 Gbps, the CPU usage goes up a lot and he cannot manage the IPS."
"It would be really helpful to have dashboards that provide information on IOC blockings such as where and how many. It will also be good to know how many hashing files have been reported. It would also be nice to have easy access to this information. Otherwise, it's a painful, manual task."
"Some users do not accept cloud-based data processing. They prefer on-premises functionality, especially for advanced threat analysis. While the general trend is moving towards cloud, specific customer needs should be considered. Perhaps certain functionalities, particularly in advanced threat analysis, could be offered as an on-premises option for those clients."
"There are a lot of bugs in this solution."
"The URL Filtering module needs to have more categories added to it."
"The ease of management and configuration should be improved."
"If we have issues, they take anywhere from two days to a week to respond. I even wrote to their CEO because there was no response. When it comes to support, this is the worst company."
"The solution needs a series of OS changes."
"They could improve by providing more features in the solution."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is ranked 27th in Firewalls with 29 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is rated 8.4. 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 Palo Alto Networks K2-Series writes "Easy to implement and manage, and the documentation is good". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks K2-Series 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.
