We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Juniper vSRX 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.
"Its user interface is good, and it is always working fine."
"SSL-VPN is very useful for us and has been very reliable."
"The solution is extremely reliable."
"The most valuable feature is the VDOM, which allows the customer to have multiple firewalls in a single campus."
"The pipe filter application is an outstanding feature."
"The solution is very, very easy to use."
"It is a good source for firewall protection."
"The usage in general is pretty good."
"The product is easy to manage and simple. It works with the rest of our Cisco products. You can drop in new ones if you need more performance. The training and documentation provided are good."
"The setup was straightforward. I was happy with the configuration and deployment of the solution, as it was quick."
"The feature that I found most valuable is the overall stability of the product."
"The Inline Mode configuration works really well, and ASA works very impressively."
"Previously, our customers had to always utilize hand-to-hand delivery. Now, they are able to move completely to a secure digital method. They use a strictly dark fiber optics connection from a central location to the endpoint."
"It is very stable compared to other firewall products."
"Simple to deploy, stable."
"At this point, we find that this product has high productivity and high availability and there is no need for improvement."
"The product’s quality and performance are better than other vendors."
"The initial setup is pretty simple."
"The most valuable features are application filtering, content filtering, the intrusion prevention system (IPS), and definitely the application firewall."
"The dashboard, customization, API, and pricing are good."
"Juniper is more flexible with the commit check and the commit confirmed command. The design of the forwarding and contract plan in the operating system is very important for the performance when we have very big traffic."
"The features we found most valuable are using the IDS and IPS during protection. The application filtering feature is great."
"It is easy for me to go in and update settings, make changes, or add/remove rules or security."
"The authentication part is seamless and easy for people."
"Some features of Fortinet FortiGate are actually fee enabled that are inconvenient for deploying in production. Other issues relate to isolation with Cisco products and your server."
"FortiGate is really good. We have been using it for quite some time. Initially, when we started off, we had around 70 plus devices of FortiGate, but then Check Point and Palo Alto took over the place. From the product perspective, there are no issues, but from the account perspective, we have had issues. Fortinet's presence in our company is very less. I don't see any Fortinet account managers talking to us, and that presence has diluted in the last two and a half or three years. We have close to 1,500 firewalls. Out of these, 60% of firewalls are from Palo Alto, and a few firewalls are from Check Point. FortiGate firewalls are very less now. It is not because of the product; it is because of the relationship. I don't think they had a good relationship with us, and there was some kind of disconnect for a very long time. The relationship between their accounts team and my leadership team seems to be the reason for phasing out FortiGate."
"Some of the software stability could improve."
"This product could be improved with Active directory integration and better handling in IPsec and GRE Tunnels."
"Vulnerability scanning could be improved."
"This product needs to have an analysis feature, rather than having the analysis done through the integration of a different product."
"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."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"The only drawback of the user interface is when it comes to policies. When you open it and click on the policies, you have to move manually left and right if you want to see the whole field within the cell. Checkpoint has a very detailed user interface."
"It should have an additional “operating mode”, like a “candidate configuration mode”, where you would have the possibility to test the changes you are going to implement and also the possibility to validate these changes."
"Initial setup was fairly complex."
"We are replacing ASA with FTD which offers many new features not available using ASA."
"It is surprising that you need to have a virtual appliance for the Firepower Management Center. It is not good if you have to setup a VMware server just for it."
"At times the product is sluggish and slow"
"Most users do not have awareness of this product's functionality and features. Cisco should do something to make them aware of them. That would be quite excellent and useful to organizations that are still using legacy data-center-security products."
"I would like to see the inclusion of a protocol that can be used to protect databases."
"There are too many types of licenses, which can be confusing."
"Some people complain that the solution tends to have a steep learning curve. It could be because most people have basic familiarity with Cisco or other similar products and maybe have never worked closely with Juniper products."
"It is pretty complex to manage and could be easier."
"The solution can be improved by allowing automatic updates for the OS devices."
"We experienced some technical issues during implementation"
"Fortinet is more user friendly than Juniper. In terms of remote access, I actually prefer using Fortinet. It's much easier to configure."
"The solution's GUI needs improvement."
"The reporting can be improved."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Juniper vSRX is ranked 26th in Firewalls with 30 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Juniper vSRX is rated 7.8. 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 Juniper vSRX writes "Fast with good usability and fairly scalable". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Juniper vSRX is most compared with Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Zscaler Cloud Firewall and OPNsense. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Juniper vSRX 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.
