We performed a comparison between McAfee StoneGate [EOL] and SonicWall NSa based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very user friendly. We are utilizing most of the features, like content filtering. The firewall is powerful."
"We are using the FortiGate 100D series. VPN, firewall, anti-malware, OTM, and intrusion prevention are useful features."
"The most valuable feature of FortiGate is FortiView which provides proactive monitoring."
"The most valuable features are simplicity, management, and that it's constantly evolving."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiGate was straightforward."
"The scalability of Fortinet FortiGate is good."
"What's most important is the ease of use."
"FortiGate is on the cheaper end, and it offers good value."
"We did not have issues with scalabiliy."
"It works well with a highly-active cluster."
"This product is user-friendly and easy to configure."
"SonicWall NSA is easy to deploy, easy to maintain, and easy to configure."
"The technical support is very good."
"We have utilized all the features. The most valuable are the URL filtering by category, DMZ zoning, load balancing and site-to-site VPN."
"It is a brilliant product. It is a Unified Threat Management (UTM) system. It has got about 11 security services that take care of your perimeter security. It takes care of any kind of cyber threats that could come in. It takes care of creating VPNs between two SonicWalls instantly and very easily. It has got spyware in it as well as a firewall. It has also got a gateway antivirus and an application firewall that can block things from outside."
"The features I found most valuable are email security and web filtering."
"The most valuable feature I've found is VPN and web protection, particularly with navigation assessment. We use the application control feature to create rules controlling specific application navigation."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is its ability to work like any other firewall."
"Fortinet could improve the windows opener or the virtual IP solutions for opening windows. The virtual IP settings need improvement as firewalls are trending in new development directions."
"Its reporting can be improved. Sometimes, I don't get proper reports."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"The platform's interface could improve."
"Technical support could be better. You don't always get the level of help you need right away."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The firewall engine is not so strong as of now, in my opinion... My second concern is that, while they have Zero-day vulnerability and anti-malware features, the threat engine needs to be strengthened, its efficiency can be increased."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard and UI, as well as to the reporting."
"After some experience with the solution, we had to do some redesign, but generally, we were happy with the product."
"We also need to increase the throughput because the other devices are slower. The throughput will become slow. Since we're using VoIP, it tends to affect the voice quality. Even if you're using a quality service, it tends to decrease."
"One issue with the solution is that no authorization or authentication features exist."
"We still get phishing emails that manage to come through from time to time."
"This product is unable to secure access to endpoints for our external employees."
"The cloud services may be in need of some improvement."
"SonicWall NSa doesn't have a proxy. It also needs a quota management feature in specific scenarios where you must limit user bandwidth for a particular day."
"Vendor support needs improvement. The frequency of time and support should be increased."
"The filter settings are confusing and overly complicated. The user interface can be improved."
Earn 20 points
McAfee StoneGate [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls while SonicWall NSa is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 77 reviews. McAfee StoneGate [EOL] is rated 7.0, while SonicWall NSa is rated 7.8. 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 SonicWall NSa writes "Great performance and security with reasonable pricing". McAfee StoneGate [EOL] is most compared with , whereas SonicWall NSa is most compared with SonicWall TZ, Meraki MX, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall and Netgate pfSense.
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.
