We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Zyxel Unified Security Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."Consolidated our network environment at all locations, but mainly at our datacenter."
"All of the features of Fortinet FortiGate are useful and the security protection is good."
"From the firewall perspective, the rules and policies are very sufficient and easy to use."
"The solution is stable."
"FortiGate has a very strong unified threat management system."
"The interface is very good."
"The web filtering facility and application control are the most valuable features from the point of view of our clients. The VPN feature is also quite popular amongst our clients. Two-factor authentication is one of the good features in Fortinet. These features are important for the current scenario of security. Security has become a necessity nowadays. With cyber-attacks becoming more common, protecting an organization's data is one of the major tasks. It is also very stable and scalable, and it is very straightforward to configure. Their technical support is also good."
"It's very fast and easy to configure."
"It's quite a capable box for UTM."
"The best solutions for our company are those we have yet to implement so it will be even better in the future for us than it already is."
"Provides good integrations and reporting."
"Cisco Secure Firewall is a good solution. In some ways, it is a reactive solution and we have it sitting in a whitelist mode rather than a blacklist mode. It seems to work fairly well for us."
"A stable and solid solution for protection from external threats and for VPN connections."
"Stability, high availability of services, and very high MTBU were the most valuable features for me."
"The Packet Tracer is a really good tool. If someone calls because they're having problems, you can easily create fake traffic without having to do an extended packet capture. You can see, straight away, if there's a firewall rule allowing that traffic in the direction you're trying to troubleshoot."
"It's very scalable. You can go to different models of the ASAs and they scale up to as big as you want to go."
"The solution can scale well."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from web filtering, malware protection, and antivirus."
"This is a capable appliance and the standard features work well for us."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"I would like to see improvements with the antivirus and IPS as they are not working properly all the time."
"It can be a little bit more user-friendly in terms of policy definition and implementation. It seems a little bit complicated, and it could be simplified."
"Monitoring and reporting could be better."
"The monitor and the visibility, in this proxy, is very weak."
"The user interface could be improved."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"The solution could be more secure and stable."
"Cisco ASA is not a next-generation firewall product."
"The user interface is too complex for people who are not trained to or certified to engage with the product. The interface should be easier to use."
"The solution has not had any layer upgrades. It does not have layer five and upwards, it only has up to layer four. This has caused some problems for us."
"Setting it up is not as intuitive as other more modern NGFWs."
"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."
"FMC could be improved because management with FMC is quite difficult compared to using Firepower web-based management."
"It is hard to control the bandwidth of end-users with a Cisco Firewall. That is the main issue I've faced. I used Mikrotik for many years for this very reason. Mikrotik has the option to set a bandwidth restriction for a single IP or complete segments. Cisco should add this option to their firewall."
"It doesn't have Layer 7 security."
"Sometimes it reboots when you least expect it, and that's the main issue."
"Although manageable, the user interface is a little bit slow and could be improved."
"The product has some scalability and data management issues where improvements are required."
More Zyxel Unified Security Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Zyxel Unified Security Gateway is ranked 10th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 3 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Zyxel Unified Security Gateway is rated 6.0. 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 Zyxel Unified Security Gateway writes "A robust appliance that is reasonably priced and straightforward to set up". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Zyxel Unified Security Gateway is most compared with Netgate pfSense, OPNsense, Sophos XG, WatchGuard Firebox and Fortinet FortiOS.
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.