We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall and Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."Good anti-malware and web filtering features."
"We have been able to offer several services to customers in a single box."
"It's very easy to configure."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a stable solution."
"FortiGate's web and URL filtering are unlike any other firewall I've used. The functionality of URL filtering in those solutions is problematic because everything is encrypted, and firewalls can't break that encryption protocol. Fortinet has an SSL proxy, so the encryption is done before the packet ever leaves the FortiGate. The URL filter is definitely one of the most helpful features."
"The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"It is a good source for firewall protection."
"The central security management center and the content management center are very good."
"We like the scalability of Forcepoint because with the Forcepoint NGFW solution, we can scale anything. The solution has central management, so we can manage all the branches and devices centrally in one controller."
"I have found that Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is easy to use, highly secure, and the main VPN tunnel is created automatically which is a benefit."
"When comparing this solution to others this one has better reporting, user management, and is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support."
"The VPN is great."
"They offer templates that provide detailed reports categorized by user, device, and internal network access."
"The most valuable feature is the console management."
"It integrates well with other solutions and provides good threat intelligence in terms of external threats."
"The most valuable feature is alerting."
"I am impressed with the tool's integration of Palo Alto products which serves as a platform for security."
"The logs play a crucial role as they contribute to blocking unwanted Internet traffic."
"The feature that I like best is the dashboard."
"The logs need to be better. They need to be more visible and easier to access."
"We would like to see better pricing."
"I use the FortiGate 60D model and realized the 300Mbps bandwidth limitation. Because it is a product that offers many services, I think it could have greater bandwidth capacity."
"The feedback that I have received is that the performance could be better, and the user experience is not as good compared to a previous solution we used. It could be more user-friendly. Of course, it still works fine for our operations."
"There are mainly two areas of improvement in Fortinet FortiGate— the licensing cost and the timing of upgrading licenses for boxes."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"Its filtering is sometimes too precise or strict. We sometimes have to bypass and authorize some of the sites, but they get blocked. We know that they are trusted sites, but they are blocked, and we don't know why."
"It claims it does DLP, but the degree and level of controls are very basic."
"Something that I've noticed that Forcepoint lacks, is the training that they offer to their end-customers"
"You do need knowledge of the solution in order to set the product up properly."
"Making this solution easier to use would be an improvement."
"The company should update the URL filtering database. They need to enhance the URL filtering and make it easier to customize."
"They need to work on stability, it has not been the best in our experience."
"They should provide more details on potential cyber threats."
"The solution needs to add an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile, not just policies and VPN."
"They should have a GUI on the product itself, not a separate management tool to be used on the management server or on a server to be used to manage the file. It should be all in one device. The device should be controlled through its own GUI. They also have to improve the learning center and the documents as the documents don't really help."
"It would be better if they used the threat intelligence feeds directly from their side and changing the verdict instead of us requesting it."
"I would like the tool to see more integration with Cortex XDR. There is no real reason to keep them separate."
"I would like to have more technical documentation that contains greater detail on the types of threats that are occurring."
"It would be helpful to have better documentation for configuring and installing the solution."
"It is a completely cloud-based product at present."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 31st in Firewalls with 39 reviews while Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is ranked 9th in Threat Intelligence Platforms with 5 reviews. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6, while Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Good URL filtering with helpful technical support and good scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus writes "Impressive performance and monitoring capabilities but lacks in documentation". Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG and Netgate pfSense, whereas Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is most compared with ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP), Anomali ThreatStream, VirusTotal, LogRhythm SIEM and Cisco Threat Grid.
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.
