We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center and Palo Alto Networks Panorama based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One of the most valuable features of Cisco Secure Firewalls is their seamless integration with other Cisco products."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable aspects are the antivirus and URL filtering."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the intrusion prevention system."
"Cisco's support and services are far superior to any other security product in Pakistan."
"The platform has significantly enhanced our organization's operations by providing secure communication channels between different office locations."
"The product's user interface is very easy to use and convenient."
"The solution has a great UI and a policy deployment mechanism, and all the configuration is easily manageable for the firewalls."
"It has shared profiles for all gateways. If I do not have Panorama, I need to create a separate profile for each and every gateway by logging into that particular gateway, but with Panorama, I can create a shared profile and just push it down to each and every gateway connected to it."
"The solution is absolutely stable."
"The reporting is great."
"A valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is reporting because it gives you different reports on data, logs, and threats. I also like the centralized firewall management feature of the product."
"The solution, especially the latest versions, is very stable."
"We use the solution for centralized monitoring."
"It is great that the records go back to 30 days."
"The telemetry visibility is really good as well as the automated workflows for creating policies. The overall solution is quite intuitive to use."
"Some duplicated values and security standards are not working in some high-application protocols with Cisco's next-generation firewalls."
"Areas for improvement include pricing points and the range of products available at any given time."
"The solution should improve the user interface."
"Cisco Firepower has been effective in solving various problems, but it could be improved by making it simpler and more user-friendly like Fortinet."
"It takes five to seven minutes to push one policy."
"It's not very user-friendly and can be somewhat disorganized."
"Improving the product by incorporating SD-WAN functionality would be highly beneficial, especially for remote offices with limited server and Internet availability."
"Cisco firewalls use old ESR or a Linux system, and there are problems with encryption. When we switch on encryption, the throughput goes down."
"The solution can improve by providing unique reports in relation to the function of which you choose the firewall to do."
"We had some challenges with the initial setup, but it was more on a learning curve basis."
"The product could offer more integration with other solutions."
"When creating remote access for users, it would be beneficial to be able to base the object on on-premises or the cloud."
"We found a vulnerability where when we have a low flow, like 2.7K, it is not getting fired by the threat prevention. That's something important to improve on. They should have a proxy or some solution to solve the issue. We also found some issues around decrypting the flow. When we have more flow than expected to decrypt, the performance goes down."
"The notification and alerting system could be improved."
"Clients need to have an alarm and alert system from which they can forward the trigger. The product needs to improve its integration as well."
"The central firewall management could be better."
More Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is ranked 7th in Firewall Security Management with 19 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 80 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center writes "A stable and reasonably priced product that protects organizations from malware". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Built-in proxy with the ability to maintain your own policies". Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, FireMon Security Manager and Cisco Defense Orchestrator, whereas Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud and Tufin Orchestration Suite. See our Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.
