Compare Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. pfSense
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 19 reviews while pfSense is ranked 2nd in Firewalls with 12 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.4, while pfSense is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "The product stability and level of security are second to none in the industry". On the other hand, the top reviewer of pfSense writes "The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up". Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense and Azure Firewall, whereas pfSense is most compared with Sophos UTM, OPNsense and Fortinet FortiGate. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. pfSense report.
Sponsored | ||
 |
Most Helpful Review | ||||||||
|
|
| ||||||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. pfSense and other solutions. Updated: March 2020. 407,538 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. | This solution not only provides better security than flat VLAN segments but allows easy movement through the lifecycle of the server. This is arguably the best security protection that you can buy. 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 scalable I 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. | The initial setup was simple and fast. This solution has increased the level of security, given us more control, provided a deep insight into network traffic, and is a great VPN solution. This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks. I had some outages in the network and we provide services for our company. We sell mobile credits. The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up and we have a back-up link on the devices. My company mainly works in the health and educational domain, schools and universities. I prevent the improper use of content from schools and universities. I defend the medical records for the patients in our hospitals. That is the main use case for me for the firewall. We generally use it because it's cheap. When we need something more robust we use Barracuda and Sony Wireless Routers. For certain clients, we use pfSense because it's compatible with the VoIP platform. Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it. There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support. |
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. | I wish that the Palos had better system logging for the hardware itself. 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. 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. | ClamAV AntiVirus can cause some crashes. That service should be improved. We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs. This product needs improvements with respect to reporting and auditing. Adjustment in the interfaces: I had to adjust those interfaces manually and of course that is a great feature that you can restore it but it is immediately also one point for improvement. If you don't have to adjust, if it's just stamped and it works, that's great. pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly. I would like to see SD1 integration into the software. That would be fantastic. It needs better parsing of logs. At the moment, you have to use an external server for this if you want a deeper analysis. I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces. |
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. | 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. | It is an open source firewall. All costs are low compared to other solutions. The hardware is stable and cheap. There is no licensing fee except for the enterprise support, if you want it. This solution was about $150,000 cheaper than the closest competitor over a three year period. It is a free solution. It is economical (i.e., free). From Sonic Wall, their price is much higher, because for every feature that you want to add, you have to pay. I can do the same things with pfSense, but everything is included in one price. There are a few features not included, and when you have to use those features, you have to pay for them. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs. 407,538 professionals have used our research since 2012. | ||
Top Comparisons | ||
 Compared 38% of the time.  Compared 10% of the time. Compared 10% of the time. | Compared 29% of the time.  Compared 12% of the time.  Compared 12% of the time. |  Compared 20% of the time.  Compared 19% of the time. Compared 15% of the time. |
Also Known As | ||
| Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls | Palo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series | |
Learn | ||
| Cisco | Palo Alto Networks | pfSense Video Not Available |
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. | 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. | Providing comprehensive network security solutions for the enterprise, large business and SOHO, pfSense solutions bring together the most advanced technology available to make protecting your network easier than ever before. Our products are built on the most reliable platforms and are engineered to provide the highest levels of performance, stability and confidence. |
Offer | ||
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW | Learn more about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls | Learn more about pfSense |
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. | SkiStar AB, Ada County, Global IT Services PSF, Southern Cross Hospitals, Verge Health, University of Portsmouth, Austrian Airlines, The Heinz Endowments | Nerds On Site Inc., RKC Development Inc., Expertech, Fisher's Technology, Ncisive, Consulting, CPURX, Vaughn's Computer House Calls, Imeretech LLC, Digital Crisis, Carolina Digital Phone, Technigogo Technology Services, The Simple Solution, SwiftecITInc, Rocky Mountain Tech Team, Free Range Geeks, Alaska Computer Geeks, Lark Information Technology, Renaissance Systems Inc., Cutting Edge Computers, Caretech LLC, GoVanguard, Network Touch Ltd, P.C. Solutions.Net, Vision Voice and Data Systems LLC, Montgomery Technologies, Techforce, Concero Networks, ASONInc, CPS Electronics and Consulting, Darkwire.net LLC, IT Specialists, MBS-Net Inc., VOICE1 LLC, Advantage Networking Inc., Powerhouse Systems, Doxa Multimedia Inc., Pro Computer Service, Virtual IT Services, A&J Computers Inc., Envision IT LLC, CommunicaONE Inc., Bone Computer Inc., Amax Engineering Corporation, QPG Ltd. Co., IT 101 Inc., Perfect Cloud Solutions, Applied Technology Group Inc., The Digital Sun Group LLC, Firespring |
Top Industries | ||
Financial Services Firm19% Manufacturing Company10% Comms Service Provider9% University6% Software R&D Company28% Comms Service Provider19% Media Company7% Government5% | Wholesaler/Distributor29% Financial Services Firm29% Construction Company14% Comms Service Provider14% Software R&D Company30% Comms Service Provider13% Financial Services Firm7% Construction Company7% | University19% Comms Service Provider14% Construction Company10% Healthcare Company10% Software R&D Company22% Comms Service Provider19% Media Company10% Retailer6% |
Company Size | ||
Small Business35% Midsize Enterprise25% Large Enterprise40% Small Business38% Midsize Enterprise19% Large Enterprise42% | Small Business48% Midsize Enterprise31% Large Enterprise21% | Small Business65% Midsize Enterprise20% Large Enterprise15% Small Business63% Midsize Enterprise25% Large Enterprise13% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. pfSense and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,538 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews, pfSense Reviews, and our list of Best Firewalls Companies.
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.