Compare Juniper SRX vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls

Juniper SRX is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 19 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 19 reviews. Juniper SRX is rated 7.2, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Juniper SRX writes "Enables us to integrate a firewall and router in a single product but IPS needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "The product stability and level of security are second to none in the industry". Juniper SRX is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks WildFire and Cisco ASA NGFW, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Azure Firewall and pfSense. See our Juniper SRX vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Viswanathan Selvakumar
Jonny Su
Find out what your peers are saying about Juniper SRX vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: May 2020.
418,901 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
They provide DDoS protection and multi-factor authentication. That is a good option as it enables work-from-home functionality.The most valuable feature is that the encryption is solid.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.

Read more »

The EEE security controls allow us to make policy restrictions, so I can customize port numbers to allow or limit control.It helped us with its routing capabilities which eased the cost, because otherwise I would have had to take a router and firewall, and then integrate it. With this, however, it was an integration of firewall and routing services all together in a single product. That was one thing that I loved about it.I like the routing and firewall features.The solution's stability is very good.I've found the security features, such as IDS and the VPN most valuable.The deployment is quite easy and fast.The most valuable feature is the virtualization because it can be used for customers who are using the mobile data network to request a private connection to a remote site.There is a lot of flexibility in how you can commit, check, and back out of a configuration.

Read more »

This is arguably the best security protection that you can buy.This solution not only provides better security than flat VLAN segments but allows easy movement through the lifecycle of the server.The initial setup was very easy.The most valuable features are the threat prevention and policy-based routing features.We have found the application control to be the most valuable feature. Also, Layer 7, because all other products are working up to the maximum capacity. But Palo Alto is benefiting us, especially in application control management. We are able to differentiate between Oracle traffic and SQL traffic.The solution is scalableI found Palo Alto NG firewalls more intuitive compared to other products. I value the capability to identify a cloud solution.Comments have some delay, but overall, it's a good product.

Read more »

Cons
Cisco provides us with application visibility and control, although it's not a complete solution compared to other vendors. Cisco needs to work on the application behavior side of things, in particular when it comes to the behavior of SSL traffic.It is expensive.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.

Read more »

It should be easier to escalate support tickets.IPS is one that I would definitely want to be improved. I would also like SSL VPN to be integrated.The workplace management console needs improvement. It should be a little bit more developed. Also, the interface needs a bit more improvement.The big thing is performance. With all the features turned on it slows down.In terms of other features, I'd like to see a web filter, 10 point control, application control and a DNA filter in the next release.The GUI needs improvement.The Juniper product has to improve in terms of innovation.It's a good stable firewall, but it's nowhere near what it needs to be for a next-generation type firewall.

Read more »

The only real drawback to this product is that it is expensive. But you get what you pay for and there is no way to put a price on top-notch security.I wish that the Palos had better system logging for the hardware itself.The advanced manual protection needs to be improved a little bit because they used to make a cloud manual analysis for the cloud.I think they need to have a proper hardware version for a smaller enterprise. We had to go to a very high-end version which is very expensive. If we chose the lower-end version, it would not meet our goals. A middle-end is missing in its portfolio.The solution needs some management tool enhancements. It could also use more reporting tools.The support could be improved.The scalability compared to other products is not good. You need to change the box whenever you want your number of connection sessions to increase.We need better affiliations for profiling the user.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
In terms of costs, other solutions are more expensive than Cisco. Palo Alto is more expensive than Cisco.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.

Read more »

There was no additional licensing cost because there were no IPS services. It was just a firewall IP circuit router so they have the default licensing. We just need to renew the support yearly.The price of this solution is more than other products, but it's stable, and the technical support is better than I have seen with others.While the price of support is expensive, the price of the solution, itself, is not.The pricing is perhaps half, probably forty percent, of Cisco.The direct support with Juniper is expensive. When you stop using the solution and miss one year of payments, if you want the support back on a specific node, they ask you to pay for the year that you haven't used the node.In terms of pricing, Juniper is in the middle. The most expensive firewall is Palo Alto. If a customer wants the cheapest price they should go for FortiGate. Juniper is in between these products.It has a low price.It is not that expensive.

Read more »

The product is expensive compared to competing products but uses a similar type of pricing model based on hardware, software and maintenance.The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that.Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have.It will be worth your time to hire a contractor to set it up and configure it for you, especially if you are not very knowledgeable with PA firewalls.Pricing is yearly, but it depends. You could pay on a yearly basis, or every three years. If you want to add a device or two, there would be an additional cost. Also, if you want to do an assessment, or other similar add-on, you have to pay accordingly for the additional service.Annually, the licensing costs are too much.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
418,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 33% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire FirewallsSRXPalo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series
Learn
Cisco
Juniper
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.

High-performance security with advanced, integrated threat intelligence, delivered on the industry's most scalable and resilient platform. SRX Series gateways set new benchmarks with 100GbE interfaces and feature Express Path technology, which enables up to 1 Tbps performance for the data center.

Palo Alto Networks' next-generation firewalls secure your business with a prevention-focused architecture and integrated innovations that are easy to deploy and use. Now, you can accelerate growth and eliminate risks at the same time.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about Juniper SRX
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls
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.7-Eleven, AARNet Pty Ltd, Allegro Networks, alltours GmbH, Apollo Hotel Papendrecht, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Atlantech Online, Availity, Bajaj Capital, Baloise Insurance, BancABC, BAS Group, Black Lotus, Blue Box, Borealis, Carilion Clinic, Catholic Health System, CATV, Champlain College, Chinas Ministry of Railways, China University of Mining and Technology (CUMT), Cloud Dynamics, CloudSeeds, Cloudwatt, CODONiS, Colt Technology Services, Cork Internet Exchange, CSS Versicherung AG, CyrusOne, Danish Crown, Deloitte Belgium, Department of Energy, Divona Telecom, DQE Communications, DreamHost, European Government Agency, Expedient, Financial Market Information Services Provider, Fluidata, Fonality, Fox Sports, Global Financial Institution, Global Investment Bank, Global Investment Company, Energy Sciences Network (ESnet), Goethe University, HEAnet, High Performance Networks Inc., HillenbrandSkiStar AB, Ada County, Global IT Services PSF, Southern Cross Hospitals, Verge Health, University of Portsmouth, Austrian Airlines, The Heinz Endowments
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm18%
Comms Service Provider10%
Manufacturing Company10%
University7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company28%
Comms Service Provider20%
Media Company7%
Construction Company5%
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider53%
Financial Services Firm18%
Energy/Utilities Company12%
University6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company32%
Comms Service Provider30%
Media Company8%
Construction Company4%
REVIEWERS
Wholesaler/Distributor29%
Financial Services Firm29%
Transportation Company14%
Construction Company14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Comms Service Provider15%
Media Company7%
Construction Company6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business35%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise40%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business28%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise51%
REVIEWERS
Small Business37%
Midsize Enterprise17%
Large Enterprise46%
REVIEWERS
Small Business48%
Midsize Enterprise31%
Large Enterprise21%
Find out what your peers are saying about Juniper SRX vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: May 2020.
418,901 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.