Most Helpful Review
I discovered that I could still keep the data rates really high, up near the 1 gigahertz data speed, without...
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
On a scale from one to ten, one being the worst and ten being the best I'd give Juniper SRX an overall rating of eight because of its' competitive price.
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.
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.
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.
IPS is one that I would definitely want to be improved. I would also like SSL VPN to be integrated.
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.
Improvements can be made to the GUI. The GUI can be improved by creating policies to handle IPS requirements. The configuration should be a one-step process. This would make it easier to complete the setup to register the time of operation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 32% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Also Known As
|Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA||SRX|
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.|
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.
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about Juniper SRX
Learn more about WatchGuard Firebox
|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, Chinas 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., Hillenbrand||Ellips, Diecutstickers.com, Clarke Energy, NCR, Wrest Park, Homeslice Pizza, Fortessa Tableware Solutions, The Phoenix Residence|
Financial Services Firm19%
Comms Service Provider12%
Comms Service Provider14%
Software R&D Company12%
Comms Service Provider53%
Financial Services Firm18%
Comms Service Provider40%
Software R&D Company10%
Venture Capital & Private Equity Firm5%
Museum Or Institution8%