Compare Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. pfSense
Sponsored
 | Jua GARCIA Gerente de Unidad at Redescomm, C.A. |
| Anonymous User Server Administrator and Operation Manager at a computer software company |
 | Bojan Oremuz CEO at trendnet |
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. pfSense and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
464,369 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:
"The IPS (In-plane switching) is the most valuable feature."
"I like the user interface because the navigation is very easy, straightforward on your left side pane you have all the sites that you need to browse. Unlike any other firewalls, it's pretty straightforward."
"We have multiple secure internal networks linked with our plants. We are from a oil company, so we have multiple plant areas which need to have restricted network access. Therefore, we are using it for restricting access to the plant area."
"The initial setup was completely straightforward."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We standardized on the product and got rid of several other types of firewalls from different vendors."
"It is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to deeply analyze the connection or connection type."
"One of the things I really like about it is that we have the same features and functions available on the entry-level device (PA-220), as do large corporations with much more costly appliances."
"One of the best firewalls on the market."
"Good functionality and features."
"The basic configuration will only take 15 minutes to set up"
"The solution is very stable."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks."
"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."
"The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary."
"The most valuable features are the VPN and the capture photo."
"The solution is very robust."
Cons
"At times the product is sluggish and slow"
"If I need to download AnyConnect in a rush, it will prompt me for my Cisco login account. Nobody wants to download a client to a firewall that they don't own."
"Most of the time, when I try to run Java, it is not compatible with ASA's current operating systems."
"We have to rely on Cisco ASDM to access the firewall interface. This needs improvement. Because we have a web-based interface, and it is a lot more user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"There is no support here in Georgia. If something goes wrong, support is not always very helpful with the other firewalls or other products."
"I would like integration with Evident.io and RedLock."
"The data loss prevention (DLP) capabilities need to be beefed up."
"Overall it is good. It is reliable and easy to understand. However, the monitoring feature could be improved."
"The initial configuration is complicated to set up."
"The user interface is a bit clumsy and not very user-friendly."
"Could also use better customer support."
"Customers don't want to buy extra things for extra capabilities"
"Generating reports is not so easy."
"I would like to see SD1 integration into the software. That would be fantastic."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
"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."
"This product needs improvements with respect to reporting and auditing."
"We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs."
"I would like to see different graphs available in the reporting."
"If a user doesn't have a large amount of experience in Linux systems, they will have problems using this solution. Users need to be highly skilled in troubleshooting competency. Users who do not have such skills will find the product difficult to use."
"The solution requires a lot of administration."
"Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions."
"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."
"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."
"Watch out for hidden licensing and incredibly high annual maintenance costs."
"I bought a license for three years and it was really affordable."
"With AnyConnect, it depends on your license. It depends on the number of concurrent users you want to connect."
"This solution might be expensive, but it is economical in the long run."
"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."
"Annually, the licensing costs are too much."
"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."
"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."
"Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have."
"The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that."
"The price of this product should be reduced."
"The pricing is competitive in the market."
"This is an expensive product, which is why some of our customers don't adopt it."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice »
"This solution provides enterprise-level features at a fraction of the cost of an enterprise firewall."
"It is an open source firewall."
"We are using the open-source version, not the commercial one."
"It has almost zero cost, and it is open to us. It runs on a small appliance just for a couple of 100 bucks, and I've never had an appliance burn out on me yet."
"It is open source."
"I spent a couple of $1,000 on hardware, and the OS was free. A comparable firewall would cost me probably 20 grand. It saved a lot of money."
"I like the fact that it is open-source."
"pfSense is open-source, but the support is something that the customer pays for."
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
464,369 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Answer:
When you compare these
firewalls you can identify them with different features, advantages,
practices and… more »
Top Answer: They provide DDoS protection and multi-factor authentication. That is a good option as it enables work-from-home… more »
Top Answer: In terms of costs, other solutions are more expensive than Cisco. Palo Alto is more expensive than Cisco.
Top Answer: Pricewise Cisco. But PA has better rating.
Top Answer: Ease of Use
- GUI familiarities and adoption level can differ from user to user.
- Personally I found CISCO ASA… more »
Top Answer: You don't really specify what type of router you are looking for but if you are talking about a gateway router I… more »
Top Answer: One other big difference is that pfSense is FreeBSD based while Sophos UTM is linux based. It is also worth having a… more »
Top Answer: Basically the major difference between Sophos XG Firewall and PFsense is that Sophos is a nextgen firewall based on… more »
Compared 34% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Firewall, Cisco ASA NGFW, Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls, Cisco ASAv
Palo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series
Cisco ASA firewalls deliver enterprise-class firewall functionality with highly scalable and flexible VPN capabilities to meet diverse needs, from small/branch offices to high performance data centers and service providers. Available in a wide range of models, Cisco ASA can be deployed as a physical or virtual appliance. Flexible VPN capabilities include support for remote access, site-to-site, and clientless VPN. Also, select appliances support clustering for increased performance, VPN load balancing to optimize available resources, advanced high availability configurations, and more.
Cisco ASAv is the virtualized version of the Cisco ASA firewall. Widely deployed in leading private and public clouds, Cisco ASAv is ideal for remote worker and multi-tenant environments. The solution scales up/down to meet performance requirements and high availability provides resilience. Also, Cisco ASAv can deliver micro-segmentation to protect east-west network traffic.
Cisco firewalls provide consistent security policies, enforcement, and protection across all your environments. Unified management for Cisco ASA and FTD/NGFW physical and virtual firewalls is delivered by Cisco Defense Orchestrator (CDO), with cloud logging also available. And with Cisco SecureX included with every Cisco firewall, you gain a cloud-native platform experience that enables greater simplicity, visibility, and efficiency.
Learn more about Cisco’s firewall solutions, including virtual appliances for public and private cloud.
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.
Learn more about Cisco ASA Firewall
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls
Learn more about pfSense
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
Financial Services Firm17%
Comms Service Provider14%
Manufacturing Company10%
Computer Software Company7%
Comms Service Provider35%
Computer Software Company22%
Government4%
Media Company4%
Comms Service Provider23%
Computer Software Company23%
Financial Services Firm14%
Manufacturing Company9%
Comms Service Provider27%
Computer Software Company24%
Media Company5%
Energy/Utilities Company5%
University14%
Comms Service Provider14%
Computer Software Company7%
Healthcare Company7%
Comms Service Provider42%
Computer Software Company17%
Media Company6%
Government5%
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise39%
Small Business27%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise52%
Small Business41%
Midsize Enterprise32%
Large Enterprise27%
Small Business71%
Midsize Enterprise16%
Large Enterprise13%
Small Business58%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise27%
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. pfSense and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
464,369 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 8th in Firewalls with 50 reviews while pfSense is ranked 2nd in Firewalls with 27 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6, while pfSense is rated 8.8. 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, Sophos XG, Azure Firewall, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos UTM, Untangle NG Firewall and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. pfSense report.
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.