We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security and RedSeal based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."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."
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"A strong point of FortiGate is the graphical interface is complete and easy to use."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"The IPS is good. It protect my network from attackers."
"Fortinet FortiGate is stable. It's used across all the countries, this is the way most multinationals run their system."
"The wireless control is helpful."
"The solution is very, very easy to use."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Cisco is head-and-shoulders above all of the competition when it comes to technical support."
"The VPN connection portal scan works flawlessly, which was a big plus for us."
"I've found their network routing to be very good."
"The most valuable features are DNS service and shell self-service within a network."
"The solution is stable."
"Cisco IOS Security is very robust and works very well."
"Cisco IOS Security increases the overall security of our network, performs authentication, and provides level 15 access and privileges."
"The most valuable features are network mapping and configuration."
"RedSeal integrates the network and gives us a visual or graphical overview of our network. If an organization is geographically dispersed, for instance, with one office in Canada and one office in the Philippines, the whole network, including all devices, is integrated into RedSeal, and you can see from where the traffic is going in and out."
"This is the only solution in the world that gives you a digital resilience score."
"It needs to improve its ISP load balancing."
"Stability and technical support are the two major issues I have found with Fortinet."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"With the reports, you can see it, and you can get good feelings so upper management can go, "Oh, wow. That looks pretty." However, it's very basic."
"The firewall engine is not so strong as of now, in my opinion... My second concern is that, while they have Zero-day vulnerability and anti-malware features, the threat engine needs to be strengthened, its efficiency can be increased."
"I have to say that the initial setup was complex. The deployment took a few days to get set up. Initially, we were using an IPVanish. We switched to this tool since we thought it would be easier. But it turns out it wasn't easier to set up and run."
"Some of the web policy reports could be improved."
"The solution’s setup process could be better."
"With respect to user-friendliness, it is a command-line interface and those with such experience will get along just fine, whereas others may struggle."
"The graphical user interface or the GUI could be better. Beginners can use some devices with the GUI, but some security devices are configured using CLI. It would also be better if it had its own Intrusion Protection Service and Intrusion Detection Service on the server."
"If they could increase the performance a little better because the device sometimes gets slow."
"There could be a bit more functions on offer that could make it easier to use."
"While Cisco IOS Security is stable and scalable, I would like to see it improved to be even better."
"The initial setup is complicated."
"Cisco IOS Security should improve its functionalities."
"One of the areas of concern is the GUI. It is important to our customers that the GUI looks beautiful. It's a Java Client, so you have a Java dependency."
"The dashboard should be improved to make correlating data easier to do."
"Sometimes, it required us to refresh the configuration. When we integrated any of the configurations into the device, sometimes, it could not detect the exact picture of that device. So, we had to reset the device to see that if it was giving true-positive results or false-positive results. In some cases, we were not able to get true-positive results. There was some kind of bug in that version. Its interface is not user-friendly and needs to be improved. It takes time to understand the interface and various options. Skybox has quite a user-friendly interface. They could provide a feature for compliance audit policy if it is already not there. A compliance audit policy ensures that all configurations are based on the best practices standards, such as CIS benchmarks standard or other similar standards. It provides visibility about whether your device configuration is based on best practices or not. Usually, such a feature is provided by other solutions such as Meteor or Tenable Nessus."
Earn 20 points
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 22nd in Firewalls with 47 reviews while RedSeal is ranked 20th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while RedSeal is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RedSeal writes "Provides a graphical overview of our network and is easy to deploy, but needs a user-friendly interface and a feature for compliance audit policy". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Meraki MX, Fortinet FortiOS, Netgate pfSense and OPNsense, whereas RedSeal is most compared with Skybox Security Suite, AlgoSec, FireMon Security Manager, Ekahau Site Survey and Darktrace.
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.
