Compare FortiGate-VM vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series

FortiGate-VM is ranked 29th in Firewalls with 11 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 11 reviews. FortiGate-VM is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of FortiGate-VM writes "Clearly captures each and every thing for the backup capture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "A reliable tool with excellent support". FortiGate-VM is most compared with pfSense, Fortinet FortiGate and Meraki MX Firewalls, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate and CyberArk PAS.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cisco ASA NGFW Logo
70,115 views|52,516 comparisons
FortiGate-VM Logo
4,992 views|3,618 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortinet, Cisco, pfSense and others in Firewalls. Updated: January 2020.
397,717 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
Unfortunately in Cisco, only the hardware was good.For us, the most valuable features are the IPX and the Sourcefire Defense Center module. That gives us visibility into the traffic coming in and going out, and gives us the heads-up if there is a potential outbreak or potential malicious user who is trying to access the site. It also helps us see traffic generated by an end device trying to reach out to the world.The information coming from Talos does a good job... I like the fact that Cisco is working with them and getting the information from them and updating the firewall.The firepower sensors have been great; they do a good job of dropping unwanted traffic.The most important point is the detection engine which is now part of the next-generation firewalls and which is supported by Cisco Talos.The most valuable feature of this solution is AMP (Advanced Malware Protection), as this is really needed to protect against cyber threats.I like the Cisco ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager), which is the configuration interface for the Cisco firewall.The technical team is always available when we have problems.

Read more »

The functionality provided is very good.The most valuable features are the web proxy for protection and web gateway for deployment.In terms of administration, it's perfect.The most valuables features are the ease of use and deployment.The stability of the solution is good. We haven't faced any issues at all while using the product.The most valuable feature is the UTM, which gives them an advantage over other firewalls.The most valuable features are site-to-site connections and UTM.The standard features, including the filtering, are quite good. All the basic features are pretty useful for us.

Read more »

Embedding it into my application development lifecycle prevents data loss and business disruption, allowing the adoption to operate at the speed of my AWS Cloud.It has a good performance which helps you with the stability of your virtual environment.In AWS, Palo Alto provides us a better view than flow logs for network traffic.App-ID and User-ID have repeatedly shown value in securing business critical systems.It provides complete security posture from end-to-end. This has given us better visibility into what our security aspects are.You already can scale it if you put it in Auto Scaling groups. If you put it in a load balancer, it should already be able to scale.It allows us to see all our traffic to properly secure it and only allow what is needed through the firewall.It offers a single pane of glass for all the different types of installations.

Read more »

Cons
In NGFW, Cisco should be aligned with the new technology and inspection intelligence because Cisco is far behind in this pipeline.We were also not too thrilled when Cisco announced that in the upcoming new-gen ASA, iOS was not going to be supported, or if you install them, they will not be able to be managed through the Sourcefire. However, it seems like Cisco is moving away from the ASA iOS to the Sourcefire FireSIGHT firmware for the ASA. We haven't had a chance to test it out.Our latest experience with a code upgrade included a number of bugs and issues that we ran into. So more testing with their code, before it hits us, would help.The software was very buggy, to the point it had to be removed.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 have found that Cisco reporting capabilities are not as rich as other products, so the reporting could be improved.The Sandbox and the Web Censoring in this solution need to be improved.It will be nice if they had what you traditionally would use a web application scanner for. If the solution could take a deeper look into HTTP and HTTPS traffic, that would be nice.

Read more »

The product may not be as robust as Palo Alto. However, unless you are a big bank, you probably won't need it to be.In the next release, I would like to see integration capability with SIEM tools, such as QRadar, and LogRhythm.The interface needs to be updated and simplified.In the next release, we would like to see full integration with VMware NSX virtualized networks.The user interface needs to be improved.The reporting is not as good as it is with other firewalls and it should be improved.When new versions are deployed they tend to be a little buggy, so they should be more fully tested before release.We haven't attempted to scale the solution just yet. If we want to scale this solution we may have to look at other models. With certain requirements, we probably wouldn't be able to scale it so well as it is right now.

Read more »

It can definitely improve on the performance.It has to be more scalable for the deployment of VMs on the cloud.I would like to see a more thorough QA process. We have had some difficulties from bugs in releases.We have ran into issues with Palo Alto’s limitations for resolving large IP lists from DNS lookups, as well as the antivirus interfering with App-ID.The product could provide protection above Layer 3, which gets into the application layer and provides better visibility into those aspects of application security.On the cloud side, they need to come up with more HA solutions to support the multi-region.AWS doesn't integrate well with third-party firewalls.I would like a way to do everything programmatically, or be able to copy the configs from different prices at different levels.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions.Pricing varies on the model and the features we are using. It could be anywhere from $600 to $1000 to up to $7,000 per year, depending on what model and what feature sets are available to us.We used Check Point and the two are comparable. Cost was really what put us onto the ASAs... the price tag for Check Point was exorbitantly more than what it is for the ASA solution.We are in the process of renewing our three-year license, which costs approximately $24,000 USD for the thirty-six months.The pricing for Cisco products is higher than others, but Cisco is a very good, strong, and stable technology.The program is very expensive.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 »

The price is similar to Symantec Endpoint, but it's more expensive than Forcepoint solutions. Fortinet is better than Forcepoint.This solution is very expensive.There is a benefit in terms of the cost of using this solution because the price is very good.The price of this product is great compared to others.

Read more »

The pricing and licensing of this product on AWS should be from $1.28/hr or $4,500.00/yr. Then, it would be a good price for the performance that it delivers.We used BYOL, because of the cost to own.The pricing and licensing of this product on AWS for a three-year commitment is a great deal, if you can plan that far ahead.Because the solution was getting deployed on AWS, it was the best place to go and it was available there.One of the factors for selecting Palo Alto was they had flexible pricing. They had a pay-as-you-go model. Comparable to other products, such as Check Point, the price point was definitely a plus.The pricing was expensive but it was comparable to the competition.AWS is available as a AMI that you can purchase from the AWS Marketplace. Therefore, you need to purchase the licensing, since it is per AMI. Then, you deploy it on a regular EC2. Then, for on-premise, you can use both Palo Alto's software and hardware.The price is not bad. They have a yearly renewal fee, and the pricing is exactly where we expect it to be.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
397,717 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 38% of the time.
Compared 31% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire FirewallsFortiGate Virtual Appliance
Learn
Cisco
Fortinet
Palo Alto Networks
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.

FortiGate Virtual Appliances allow you to mitigate blind spots by implementing critical security controls within your virtual infrastructure. They also allow you to rapidly provision security infrastructure whenever and wherever it is needed. FortiGate virtual appliances feature all of the security and networking services common to traditional hardware-based FortiGate appliances. With the addition of virtual appliances from Fortinet, you can deploy a mix of hardware and virtual appliances, operating together and managed from a common centralized management platform.

The VM-Series is a virtualized form factor of our next-generation firewall that can be deployed in a range of private and public cloud computing environments based on technologies from VMware, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Citrix and KVM.

The VM-Series natively analyzes all traffic in a single pass to determine the application identity, the content within, and the user identity. These core elements of your business can then be used as integral components of your security policy, enabling you to improve your security efficacy through a positive control model and reduce your incident response time though complete visibility into applications across all ports.

In both private and public cloud environments, the VM-Series can be deployed as a perimeter gateway, an IPsec VPN termination point, and a segmentation gateway, protecting your workloads with application enablement and threat prevention policies.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about FortiGate-VM
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks VM-Series
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.Security7 Networks, COOPENAEWarren Rogers Associates
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm19%
Manufacturing Company10%
Comms Service Provider9%
Software R&D Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company28%
Comms Service Provider18%
Media Company8%
Retailer5%
REVIEWERS
Media Company29%
Maritime Company14%
Healthcare Company14%
Government14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Writing And Editing Position9%
Comms Service Provider7%
Government7%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise24%
Large Enterprise40%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business38%
Midsize Enterprise19%
Large Enterprise43%
REVIEWERS
Small Business56%
Midsize Enterprise31%
Large Enterprise13%
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise29%
Large Enterprise36%
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortinet, Cisco, pfSense and others in Firewalls. Updated: January 2020.
397,717 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.