Compare ShieldX vs. WatchGuard Firebox

ShieldX is ranked 26th in Firewalls with 4 reviews while WatchGuard Firebox is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 24 reviews. ShieldX is rated 9.2, while WatchGuard Firebox is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of ShieldX writes "The insertion of applications in the cloud dropped from an average of three to four weeks to a couple of days". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Firebox writes "Geolocation allows us to lock down certain policies to only U.S. IPs". ShieldX is most compared with VMware NSX, Illumio Adaptive Security Platform and Guardicore Centra, whereas WatchGuard Firebox is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense and Sophos XG. See our ShieldX vs. WatchGuard Firebox report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cisco ASA NGFW Logo
70,430 views|52,670 comparisons
ShieldX Logo
3,218 views|320 comparisons
WatchGuard Firebox Logo
7,424 views|5,193 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about ShieldX vs. WatchGuard Firebox and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
405,734 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.

Read more »

The most valuable feature is the automatic scaling. With its microservices, it scales both up and down, depending on traffic and throughput.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.We were able to see what devices are talking to each other, giving us more visibility.It has helped us tighten our security posture. Now, staff can only access things that they should be accessing.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.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.

Read more »

The solution has increased productivity with our outside salespeople being able to connect into their computers and use those remotely.It's hard to pick one feature over another. But if I had to pick one, the UTM would be the most valuable because of the notification. I get notified via email if there is any type of threat detection or alert, telling me something is wrong.The most valuable feature is the ease of use of the interface.It's very easy to use, especially compared to similar products. A lot more users use the WatchGuard appliance now than use the SonicWall appliance because of the ease of usability.The most valuable features of this solution are live logging, rule setup and maintenance, and VPN creation.Intrusion Prevention is my primary focus so that's what I find most useful. The why is straightforward: It's to prevent intrusion.[A] valuable feature would be the branch office. We have five offices throughout the United States, and it coordinates the connections of those offices.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.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

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.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.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.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.

Read more »

The few issues that we have had, such as not knowing where to go, they have been answered quickly.Websense is an application that monitors and filters internet traffic. Websense was derived from WatchGuard. But when you go to WatchGuard to actually implement that particular feature, you have to use some type of additional feature and you have to pay for it, unfortunately. I think it should be free or free in the WatchGuard box itself, as an option. It would be nice if they didn't charge us for that.The reporting is a little on the weak side. I would like to see a better reporting set and easier drill-down options.There is a slight learning curve.We would like to see granular notification settings and more advanced filtering in traffic monitoring.I'd like to have better access to workstation monitoring, connection monitoring, and the amount of time an address is being used, to better gauge proper network utilization. If I knew that something was connected to a particular external location for an extended period that seems abnormal, I'd be able to act upon it.In terms of the reporting and management features — and this isn't necessarily a WatchGuard issue, this seems to be more of an industry-wide issue — you get reports, but a lot of times you don't know what you're looking at. You're so overwhelmed with the data. You're getting a lot of stuff that doesn't matter, so it takes time to parse through it, to actually get what you want to know.Sometimes, the writing rules are a little confusing in how am I doing them.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

For a three-year deal we paid £55,000 plus tax... But, and this is a big "but," this was over two years ago. ShieldX had only just hit the market. We were the first company in Europe to buy ShieldX.For other security professions who are looking for something which is low in cost that does microsegmentation, they should look at ShieldX. It might not be the big name out there, but it does everything that you are looking for in microsegmentation at a very low price.ShieldX also enables us to migrate to cloud environments faster. That is an important part of it for sure because it takes the exact same policies that we would apply to our on-premise environment and enables us to simply apply them to the cloud. It becomes one policy for both on-prem and for the cloud.ShieldX ensures that we can have the separation needed for our environment to avoid drastically increasing the cost on the licensing side. From this perspective, it's been very positive and helpful.We are very happy with the pricing and licensing. It's about getting a site-wide license. One of the challenges that we've had with our previous vendor had been the cost of licensing.We are actually expecting our costs to drop in the coming year, but it is just a matter of the licensing expiring. That is going to happen in the next six months or so. Then, we will start to see a decrease in overall spend.Security policies are now applied as applications are going up. Because it's automated, we don't have the three to four week delay. The insertion of applications in the cloud for us dropped from an average of three to four weeks to a couple of days.

Read more »

We don't have any other costs other than the licensing stuff.The cost was somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000 to $3,000 for each one...It costs me about $800 a year.I buy a three-year renewal on the main device, which is usually around $3,000 to $4,000. They usually upgrade the device when I do it. You get a big discount when you do three years.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.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
405,734 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 38% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire FirewallsAPEIRO, ShieldX APEIRO
Learn
Cisco
ShieldX Networks
WatchGuard
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.

The ShieldX Elastic Security Platform dynamically scales to deliver comprehensive and consistent controls to protect data centers, cloud infrastructure, applications and data no matter where they are or where they go to make the cloud more secure than on-premise deployments. Our frictionless approach leverages agentless technology as well as the ShieldX Adaptive Intention Engine which autonomously translates and enforces intention into a set of comprehensive controls - microsegmentation, firewall, IPS and more - making security the easiest thing you do in the cloud.

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.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about ShieldX
Learn more about WatchGuard Firebox
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.Iowa State UniversityEllips, Diecutstickers.com, Clarke Energy, NCR, Wrest Park, Homeslice Pizza, Fortessa Tableware Solutions, The Phoenix Residence
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm19%
Manufacturing Company10%
Comms Service Provider9%
University6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company28%
Comms Service Provider19%
Media Company7%
Construction Company5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company94%
Government3%
Comms Service Provider1%
Insurance Company1%
REVIEWERS
Manufacturing Company22%
Construction Company17%
Individual & Family Service6%
Real Estate/Law Firm6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company16%
Comms Service Provider12%
Transportation Company11%
Media Company10%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business35%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise40%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business39%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise41%
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business70%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise4%
Find out what your peers are saying about ShieldX vs. WatchGuard Firebox and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
405,734 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.