Compare Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls vs. WatchGuard Firebox

Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls is ranked 24th in Firewalls with 8 reviews while WatchGuard Firebox which is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 20 reviews. Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls is rated 8.6, while WatchGuard Firebox is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls writes "Valuable firewall solution for enterprise organizations who need reliable flexible security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Firebox writes "Geolocation allows us to lock down certain policies to only U.S. IPs". Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, FireEye Network Security and Cisco Firepower NGFW, whereas WatchGuard Firebox is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense and OPNsense. See our Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls vs. WatchGuard Firebox report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls vs. WatchGuard Firebox and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
360,852 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The most valuable features are the flexibility and level of security that this solution provides.Integration with all the other Cisco tools is valuable.We moved from a legacy firewall to the ASA with FirePOWER, increasing our Internet Edge defense dramatically.Cisco ASA NGFW significantly improves our bank. It protects any high-value products that we use from hackers, viruses, malware, and script-bots. It gives us metrics on network traffic as well as what kind of attacks we are getting from the outside.Right now, Cisco ASA NGFW has given us a lot of improvement. We are planning to move to a new facility and will be a much larger organization.The feature that I found most valuable is the overall stability of the product.The stability of Cisco ASA is excellent compared to other products on the market. Because of our customer experience as an integrator company, our clients never report any performance problems. We have a good performance reputation with Cisco ASA.I would say the Firepower module is most valuable. I'm trying more to transition to this kind firewall. I had to study a little on Palo Alto Networks equipment. There is a lot I have to learn about the difference.

Read more »

The most valuable feature is that it has the ability to divide the network into three parts; internal, external, and DMZ.A powerful enterprise security solution that is dependible.The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate vertically.An efficient, easy to deploy and dependable firewall solution.This solution is easy to use if you know how to set it up.The most important feature is its categorization because on the site and social media you are unified in the way they are there.The web interface was easy for me. The configuration is logical, so it's easy to use and easy to understand how to protect, how to open a port, how to manage and how to route a device. That's why I prefer Cisco. It's robust and I never have issues with the hardware. That's why I choose Cisco and not another vendor.

Read more »

HostWatch makes it so I can see, in real-time, activity in the event that there is something weird happening on the network. This simplifies my job.The product's usability is good. It is straightforward and simple. One of the benefits is that it is easy to navigate and intuitive.The throughput is great. It's perfect. We have no issues whatsoever. The management features are very powerful...It's pretty simple to use. It's pretty simple to understand, and there's plenty of documentation. It does a pretty good job of what it is meant to do.One of the most valuable features is the Geolocation. Because we aren't a multinational corporation, it allows me to look at things which might be suspicious to make sure that they are legitimate transactions rather than people sniffing around the network.One of my favorite features is the Geolocation service, where you can actually block specific activity or IP addresses registered to certain countries. For example, I don't want any web traffic from Russia or North Korea. I may even lock down certain policies down to 'I only want U.S. IP addresses.' I find that very useful.They've done a lot of work with their SD-WAN, which we do use, to have our old internet service with our new internet service. If anything goes down on a particular interface, I can have different rules applied. Most of my users don't even know when our primary internet goes down anymore... I don't have to be here to do anything to switch it to our backup internet or to switch it back.If there is any conflict, the reporting feature will kick out all types of information, which is great.

Read more »

Cons
There was an error in the configuration, related to our uplink switches, that caused us to contact technical support, and it took a very long time to resolve the issue.With regards to stability, we had a critical bug come out during our evaluation... not good.The product would be improved if the GUI could be brought into the 21st Century.Cisco should improve its user interface design. There is a deep learning curve to the product if you are a newcomer.There is no support here in Georgia. If something goes wrong, support is not always very helpful with the other firewalls or other products.One of my main concerns, an area that could use improvement is in adjusting the need to buy a license to enable features.Usually, the customers are satisfied, but I am going to recommend that all clients upgrade to FirePOWER management. I want Cisco to improve the feature called anti-spam. We use a Cisco only email solution, that's why we need the anti-spam on email facility.The installation and integration of Cisco ASA with FirePOWER can be improved. The management with Fortigate is easier than Cisco ASA on FirePOWER. The management side of Cisco ASA can be improved so it can be more easily configured and used.

Read more »

I would like for the user interface to be easier for the admin and network admin. I would also like to be able to access everything from the GUI interface. The way it is now, it needs somebody experience in iOS to be able to operate it. I would like to have a GUI interface.The GUI interface could be improved when compared to other solutions.There used to be information displayed about the packets in a module called Packet Flow, but it is no longer there.The interface for monitoring could be improved to allow better views to make troubleshooting easier.The inclusion of an autofill feature would improve the ease of commands.I see room for improvement when it comes to integrating all the devices into a central management system. Cisco doesn't provide this, but there are some good products in the market that can provide it.The service could use a little more web filtering. If I compare it to Cyberoam, Cyberoam has more the web filtering, so if you want to block a website, it's easier in other solutions than in Cisco.

Read more »

Sometimes, the writing rules are a little confusing in how am I doing them.We were able to take from an older configuration, build a new one quickly, and get it up and running, which didn't take long, but there was some pain around it.The software base, the management piece that goes onto a server, is not as user-friendly as I would like. There are three different pieces that you have to manage, so it's a little bit convoluted, in my opinion.Last year, I had an issue with one of the Fireboxes going down. It was overheated, because my server room became overheated and this fried it.The drawbacks are just sometimes not having the technical information that we need in order to easily make connections with all of our Internet-based clients.Reporting is something you've got to set up separately. It's one of those things that you've got to put some time into. One of the options is to set up a local report server, which is what I did. It's not great. It's okay... Some of the stuff is a little complicated to get up and running. Once you do, it becomes very user-friendly and easy to work with, but I find there are some implementation headaches with some of their stuff.The software in it could be a bit more friendly for an amateur user. I look at it and don't understand what half the stuff is. Looking at the interface, it is all mumbo-jumbo to me. It's not a simple interface. You have to be an IT guy to understand it. It is not for your average person to use, then walk away from it. It is much more entailed.I would like a deeper insight into their bandwidth monitoring.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Watch out for hidden licensing and incredibly high annual maintenance costs.We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement.The cost is a big factor for us. This is why we are using it only in our restricted area. They are very much higher than their competitors in the market.Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions.Pricing is high, but it is essentially a corporate decision.The cost is a bit high compared to other solutions in the market.Cisco recently has become very expensive.The cost is a bit higher than other competitive solutions on the market.

Read more »

The cost of this solution is high.Some of our customers would be more likely to standardize on Cisco equipment if the cost was lower because a lot of people install cheap equipment.

Read more »

Their price point worked, which is the reason why we stayed with WatchGuard.We pay about $3,500 every three years.I think we might be subscribed to one or two of the premium features.We had a trade-in offer at the end of our first three-year term. As a result, we pretty much got a free device by buying the three-year subscription. It was around $3,000 for the three-years.There is an additional cost for support on top of licensing. When I bought my new unit, I received additional time added to my support.Our licensing costs are around $3000 on a yearly basis. It is just a licensing fee for the services, like the UTM services, and it includes support.The cost three years ago was about $800.The two larger devices are about $1,000 each and the smaller ones are about $500 or $600 each... It's cheaper and you have more control because it's self-managed.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
360,852 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASASourcefire Firewalls
Learn
Cisco
Cisco
WatchGuard
Overview

Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) is Cisco's end-to-end software solution and core operating system that powers the Cisco ASA product series. This software solution provides enterprise-level firewall capabilities for all types of ASA products, including blades, standalone appliances and virtual devices. Adaptive Security Appliance provides protection to organizations of all sizes, and allows end-users to access information securely anywhere, at any time, and through any device.

Adaptive Security Appliance is also fully compatible with other key security technologies, and so provides organizations with an all-encompassing security solution.

Block more threats and quickly mitigate those that do breach your defenses with the industry’s first threat-focused NGFW.

Sourcefire Firewalls help ensure your network's availability and the security of your company's resources by protecting the network infrastructure against network- and application-layer attacks, viruses, and worms.

WatchGuard's approach to network security focuses on bringing best-in-class, enterprise-grade security to any organization, regardless of size or technical expertise. Ideal for SMBs and distributed enterprise organizations, our award-winning Unified Threat Management (UTM) appliances are designed from the ground up to focus on ease of deployment, use, and ongoing management, in addition to providing the strongest security possible.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls
Learn more about WatchGuard Firebox
Sample Customers
There are more than one million Adaptive Security Appliances deployed globally. Top customers include First American Financial Corp., Genzyme, Frankfurt Airport, Hansgrohe SE, Rio Olympics, The French Laundry, Rackspace, and City of Tomorrow.Aegean Motorway, EllisDon Corporation, Linz AG, Ellips, Diecutstickers.com, Clarke Energy, NCR, Wrest Park, Homeslice Pizza, Fortessa Tableware Solutions, The Phoenix Residence
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm19%
Manufacturing Company12%
Comms Service Provider12%
University7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider14%
13%
Software R&D Company12%
Manufacturing Company9%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm43%
Manufacturing Company14%
Logistics Company14%
Healthcare Company14%
REVIEWERS
Manufacturing Company31%
Construction Company15%
Healthcare Company8%
Individual & Family Service8%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business38%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise37%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business42%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise33%
REVIEWERS
Small Business21%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise57%
REVIEWERS
Small Business70%
Midsize Enterprise30%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls vs. WatchGuard Firebox and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
360,852 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email