We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Waterfall Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."Fortinet FortiGate is easy to use."
"Centralized monitoring, policy management, and virtualized appliances allow us to take control over our public and private infrastructure."
"We purchased Fortinet because of the pricing, its functionality, because it met our requirements, and the total cost of ownership over five years was quite reasonable. In the market, Fortinet is rated quite well."
"The feature I like most is the SD-WAN. It allows you to manage more than one ISP at the same time. And there is a high-availability mode, so if one of your ISPs is down, you still have a backup."
"Overall, the pricing of the solution is very good. The product offers good value."
"The scalability of Fortinet FortiGate is good."
"The usage in general is pretty good."
"Security, SD-WAN, and Streetscape are valuable features."
"They provide DDoS protection and multi-factor authentication. That is a good option as it enables work-from-home functionality."
"Cisco ASA has an okay CLI with a nice GUI."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the integrations and IPS throughput."
"Implementing Cisco Secure Firewall has saved us time because we rely on most of the out-of-the-box signatures. It has reduced the time and effort spent in configuration within the security network."
"Cisco Secure Firewall is robust and reliable."
"It is a secure product."
"The high-availability features, the VPN and the IPSec, are our top three features."
"The features I have found most valuable are the ASA firewalls. I like to have features like most integrated systems in ACI."
"This is a professional solution which has been the most valuable aspect of its use."
"FortiGate support could do some improvements on their IPv6 configuration. Right now it's still in the very early stage for utilizing in an enterprise level network environment."
"They are doing good, but they can improve the distributor assignment. The availability of the product and the timeline of delivery are the main things. The distribution should be swift, and the distributor should not reach out to end customers directly. They should work as a distributor. There should also be one more local distributor. Currently, there is only one distributor in Pakistan, and the rest of them are in UAE. It is difficult to work with only one distributor. Sometimes, you don't get along with the same distributor, and that's why they should have one more distributor. Their licensing should also be improved. The activation or renewal of the product should be done from the date of renewal, not from the date on which the license expired."
"To some degree, it's almost a question as to why some of this stuff isn't simpler. For example, for an AP deployment, while it's integrated, the number of steps that you have to go through in order to get the AP up, seems like a lot."
"The integration with third-party tools may be something that they should work on."
"It should be more stable. There should be full integration within Fortinet products themselves as well as with other third-party products. Especially when you're not dealing with SIEM and the correlation of the security box, we want Fortinet to be able to share that information with as many other products as it can."
"It would be nice if backups could more easily migrate between different models."
"The scalability could be better."
"While FortiGate is cheaper than most other solutions, we're seeing increased license renewal costs. Most of our clients are asking for more significant discounts because the price is going up."
"Sometimes my customers say that Cisco Firewalls are a bit more difficult compared to Fortigate or Palo Alto. There is complexity in the configuration and the GUI could be improved."
"The only improvement that we could make is maybe [regarding] the roadmap, to have better visibility as to what we are targeting ahead in the next few quarters."
"The maturity needs to be better."
"The main problem we have is that things work okay until we upgrade the firmware, at which point, everything changes, and the net stops working."
"Its configuration through GUI as well as CLI can be improved and made easier."
"I would like the ability to drill down into certain reports because currently, that cannot be done."
"The solution's deployment is time-consuming, which should be minimized and made more user-friendly for us."
"Cisco's inspection visibility could be better."
"The interface of this solution could be more user friendly. The initial set up could also be made more simple."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Waterfall Security is ranked 5th in Operational Technology (OT) Security with 1 review. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Waterfall Security is rated 9.0. 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 Waterfall Security writes "Cyber security solution used for data transmission that requires training to make use of all of its powerful features". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Waterfall Security is most compared with OPSWAT MetaDefender OT Security and Nozomi Networks.
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.