Compare Cisco Firepower NGFW 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 Firepower NGFW Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: July 2021.
521,690 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
"I like the way Firepower presents the data. It gives you two classifications for the evidence, something based on the priority of the evidence and another classification based on the impact of the evidence in your environment. This makes it very easy to spot the evidence that is most impactful to my environment. Instead of having to go through all the evidence based on that priority, I can focus on the evidence that has the most impact on my environment.""The most valuable feature of the Firepower solution is FireSIGHT, which can be easily managed and is user-friendly.""Once you add Firepower onto to it and you start enabling some of its features, you get some IDS/IPS involved with it and you can even do web filtering.""The most valuable features of Cisco firewalls are the IPS and IDS items. We find them very helpful. Those are the biggest things because we have some odd, custom-made products in our environment. What we've found through their IPS and IDS is that their vulnerability engines have caught things that are near-Zero-day items, inside of our network.""The IPS, as well as the malware features, are the two things that we use the most and they're very valuable.""The protection and security features, like URL filtering, the inspection, and the IPS feature, are also very valuable for us. We don't have IT staff at most of the sites so for us it's important to have a robust firewall at those sites""We can easily track unauthorized users and see where traffic is going.""With the FMC and the FirePOWERs, the ability to quickly replace a piece of hardware without having to have a network outage is useful. Also, the ability to replace a piece of equipment and deploy the config that the previous piece of equipment had is pretty useful."

More Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall Pros »

"This solution not only provides better security than flat VLAN segments but allows easy movement through the lifecycle of the server.""The most valuable features are the IPS/IDS subscriptions.""Provision of quality training material and the reporting is very good.""The solution allows us to set parameters on where our users can go. We can block certain sites or ads if we want to.""The interface and dashboards are good.""The most valuable feature is the security provided by the ATP.""I like that it has high security.""Innovative, advanced threat protection is the most valuable feature."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pros »

Cons
"Also, they have a Firepower source file that I can work on the ASA device and on Firepower devices. A problem here lies in the way that you manage these devices. Some devices do not support the FMC, and some devices have to be managed through ASDM, and others have to be managed through FMC.""I would like to see the inclusion of more advanced antivirus features in the next release of this solution.""In Firepower, there is an ability to search and dig into a search, which is nice. However, I'm not a super fan of the way it scrolls. If you want to look at something live, it's a lot different. You're almost waiting. With the ASDM, where it just flows, you can really see it. The second someone clicks something or does something, you'll see it. The refresh rate on the events in Firepower is not as smooth.""The worst part of the entire solution, and this is kind of trivial at times, is that management of the solution is difficult. You manage FireSIGHT through an internet browser. I've had Cisco tell me to manage it through Firefox because that's how they develop it. The problem is, depending on the page you're on, they don't function in the same way. The pages can be very buggy, or you can't resize columns in this one, or you can't do certain things in that one. It causes a headache in managing it.""For the new line of FTDs, the performance could be improved. We sometimes have issues with the 41 series, depending what we activate. If we activate too many intrusion policies, it affects the CPU.""The user interface for the Firepower management console is a little bit different from traditional Cisco management tools. If you look at products we already use, like Cisco Prime or other products that are cloud-based, they have a more modern user interface for managing the products. For Firepower, the user interface is not very user-friendly. It's a little bit confusing sometimes.""We would like to see improvement in recovery. If there is an issue that forces us to do recovery, we have to restart or reboot. In addition, sometimes we have downtime during the maintenance windows. If Cisco could enhance this, so that upgrades would not necessarily require downtime, that would be helpful.""We had an event recently where we had inbound traffic for SIP and we experienced an attack against our SIP endpoint, such that they were able to successfully make calls out... Both CTR, which is gathering data from multiple solutions that the vendor provides, as well as the FMC events connection, did not show any of those connections because there was not a NAT inbound which said either allow it or deny it."

More Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall Cons »

"I wish that the Palos had better system logging for the hardware itself.""In the future, I would like to see more OTP features.""Need improvement with their logs, especially the command line interface.""We're working with the entry-level appliances, so I don't know what the higher-end ones are like, however, on the entry-level models I would say commit speeds need to be improved.""The pricing could be improved upon.""I would like the option to be able to block the traffic from a specific country in a few clicks.""The whole performance takes a long time. It takes a long time to configure.""The user interface is probably not as slick as it could be."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"The price of this solution is not good or bad.""The Firepower series of appliances is not cheap. I just got a quote recently for six firewalls that was in the range of over half-a-million dollars. That's what could push us to look to other vendors...""Our subscription costs, just for the firewalls, is between $400,000 and $500,000 a year.""Cisco's pricing is high, at times, for what they provide.""The one-time cost is affordable, but the maintenance cost and the Smart Net costs need to be reduced. They're too high.""We normally license on a yearly basis. The hardware procurement cost should be considered. If you're virtual maybe that cost is eradicated and just the licensing cost is applied. If you have hardware the cost must be covered by you. All the shipping charges will be paid by you also. I don't thing there are any other hidden charges though.""Cisco pricing is premium. However, they gave us a 50 to 60 percent discount.""There are additional implementation and validation costs."

More Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice »

"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.""The product is expensive compared to competing products but uses a similar type of pricing model based on hardware, software and maintenance.""It is a little bit expensive than other firewalls, but it is worth every penny. There are different licenses for the kinds of services you want to use. When we buy a new product, we go for a three-year subscription.""It is a little bit expensive.""The NG firewall is an expensive solution.""This is an expensive product and there is a subscription cost."

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.
521,690 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. It supports virtualization very well and is number one for reporting.

Checkpoint NGFW is strong but under competition for high volumes when compared referred to a comparable appliance (Fortinet for instance). It needs perhaps more technical knowledge to administrate, in spite of an amazing choice of blades in the NGFW offering.


The reliability depends on your partner or integrator and a good definition of needs to have a proper sizing of your equipment.

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 avatarVirendra Vishnu
Real User

Ease of Use


- GUI familiarities  and adoption level can differ from user to user.


- Personally I found CISCO  ASA interface is hard to comprehend compare to Palo Alto


- Command line interface is good, only challenge is past experience and correctness of commands to get error free results! 


Performance of the Appliance


- Palo Alto VS CISCO - Palo Alto is better performing appliance.


author avatarKirtikumar Patel
Real User

Palo Alto has 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, disadvantages, 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: Ease of Use - GUI familiarities  and adoption level can differ from user to user. - Personally I found CISCO  ASA interface is hard to comprehend compare to Palo Alto - Command line interface is… more »
Top Answer: Cisco Firepower Family and it is a NGFW since ASA is just a FW.
Top Answer: There are plenty of features available in this solution, such as attack blocker and spam blocker. Additionally, it is very robust and in-depth.
Top Answer: We are on an annual license for this solution. I am happy with the price and when comparing it to other solutions it is priced competitively.
Ranking
6th
out of 47 in Firewalls
Views
40,030
Comparisons
29,592
Reviews
38
Average Words per Review
1,062
Rating
8.3
7th
out of 47 in Firewalls
Views
19,279
Comparisons
14,369
Reviews
63
Average Words per Review
491
Rating
8.5
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Cisco Firepower NGFW, Cisco Firepower Next-Generation Firewall, FirePOWER, Cisco NGFWv
Palo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series
Learn More
Overview

Cisco NGFW firewalls deliver advanced threat defense 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 NGFW can be deployed as a physical or virtual appliance. Advanced threat
defense capabilities include Next-generation IPS (NGIPS), Security Intelligence (SI), Advanced
Malware Protection (AMP), URL filtering, Application Visibility and Control (AVC), and flexible VPN
features. Inspect encrypted traffic and enjoy automated risk ranking and impact flags to reduce event
volume so you can quickly prioritize threats. Cisco NGFW firewalls are also available with clustering
for increased performance, high availability configurations, and more.
Cisco Firepower NGFWv is the virtualized version of Cisco's Firepower NGFW firewall. Widely
deployed in leading private and public clouds, Cisco NGFWv automatically scales up/down to meet
the needs of dynamic cloud environments and high availability provides resilience. Also, Cisco NGFWv
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 Firepower NGFW Firewall
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls
Sample Customers
Rackspace, The French Laundry, Downer Group, Lewisville School District, Shawnee Mission School District, Lower Austria Firefighters Administration, Oxford Hospital, SugarCreek, Westfield
SkiStar AB, Ada County, Global IT Services PSF, Southern Cross Hospitals, Verge Health, University of Portsmouth, Austrian Airlines, The Heinz Endowments
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider21%
Financial Services Firm18%
Manufacturing Company9%
Non Profit9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider36%
Computer Software Company20%
Government6%
Manufacturing Company4%
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider24%
Computer Software Company18%
Financial Services Firm13%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider26%
Computer Software Company23%
Government6%
Energy/Utilities Company5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business40%
Midsize Enterprise28%
Large Enterprise32%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business12%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise75%
REVIEWERS
Small Business42%
Midsize Enterprise30%
Large Enterprise28%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business30%
Midsize Enterprise18%
Large Enterprise53%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: July 2021.
521,690 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 41 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 7th in Firewalls with 60 reviews. Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is rated 8.4, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall writes "Enables analysis, diagnosis, and deployment of fixes quickly, but the system missed a SIP attack". 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 Firepower NGFW Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco ASA Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Meraki MX and pfSense, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Azure Firewall, Sophos XG, pfSense and Check Point CloudGuard Network Security. See our Cisco Firepower NGFW 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.