We performed a comparison between McAfee StoneGate [EOL] and ShieldX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The Intrusion Prevention System and the web filtering are both working well."
"The pricing is excellent. It's much less expensive than Cisco."
"The most valuable feature is the policy routing and application control."
"What's most important is the ease of use."
"The reporting and monitoring are very good."
"The CLI is robust and powerful, enabling rapid, consistent changes via SSH."
"The application control features, such as Facebook blocking and Spotify blocking, are the most valuable."
"The solution has very good threat and content filtering switches."
"We did not have issues with scalabiliy."
"It works well with a highly-active cluster."
"The most valuable feature is the automatic scaling. With its microservices, it scales both up and down, depending on traffic and throughput."
"We were able to see what devices are talking to each other, giving us more visibility."
"The Adaptive Intention Engine is fantastic. It allows us to develop security policies using the language of our internal customers. It's machine-learning applied to security workflows. That allows us to much more easily construct the policies that will protect those workflows."
"...It takes the exact same policies that you would apply to your on-premise environment and enables you to simply apply them to the cloud. It becomes one policy for both on-prem and for the cloud."
"The UI was also one of the huge selling points. My web development manager was blown away with the detail and the granularity that you can get out of the UI. It is a very strong and informative UI, with the amount of data it provides."
"It has helped us tighten our security posture. Now, staff can only access things that they should be accessing."
"ShieldX has been designed from the very beginning to work well in cloud environments. It understands autoscaling, automation, and auto-configuration. These are the things which are important in today's operating environment."
"There could be more integration between the logging and analytical platforms to make it more seamless and integrated."
"We would like to have the ability to disable some of the security functionalities."
"The support costs and licensing are sometimes so expensive."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"One of the features that I would like to have is to do with endpoint production, it should be integrated. For example, the firewall gets notified of any kind of forensic event that needs to be done, such as if there is a ransomware attack and how it originated, all those records have to be available from the firewall, which is not."
"There are problems with the custom reporting of the unique traffic. The data is there, but it is too difficult for us to extract."
"MTBF: Hardware failure is more common when compared to SonicWall or Cisco ASA."
"Lacks training for new features."
"After some experience with the solution, we had to do some redesign, but generally, we were happy with the product."
"There should be a bit more customer care, with regular review meetings on it or regular reports. It would be nice to have a quarterly or biannual review of what ShieldX has blocked."
"With any kind of tool like ShieldX, where you're in the cloud instead of a traditional firewall, you're using CPU resources in those environments to provide the protection. So there's a cost associated with CPU resources. I'm pressing upon them to make the product much more efficient and use less CPUs to do the same thing."
"I would like better reports and in-depth reporting."
"We are having some issues with their LDAP and integrating it with the Active Directory. We can't seem to set it up."
"They need to be consistent in performance and capabilities over time, given the fact that this is new and I want to see where this goes in the next year or so. As the vendor continues to evolve and add future functionality, we want to make sure that we are still keeping up with the integrations, etc. Time will be the key factor here. The proper support for some of the latest technologies, Docker containers, etc. They need to keep up with threat landscape, so we will see how the security get layered. This is what we are going to be keeping an eye on."
Earn 20 points
Earn 20 points
McAfee StoneGate [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls while ShieldX is ranked 46th in Firewalls. McAfee StoneGate [EOL] is rated 7.0, while ShieldX is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of McAfee StoneGate [EOL] writes "The HA cluster had issues during deployment, but the solution gives us better application control than with our previous solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ShieldX writes "Proactively monitors, blocks, and reports what it has blocked; and self-updates meaning there is zero maintenance". McAfee StoneGate [EOL] is most compared with , whereas ShieldX is most compared with .
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
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.
