We all know it's really hard to get good pricing and cost information.
Please share what you can so you can help your peers.
In terms of costs, other solutions are more expensive than Cisco. Palo Alto is more expensive than Cisco.
It is expensive.
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. The only additional cost is Smart NET. That also depends on whether you're doing gold or silver, 24/7 or 8/5, etc.
We used Check Point and the two are comparable. Cost was really what put us onto the ASAs. They both do what it is we need them to do. At Orvis, what we need to do is very basic. But the price tag for Check Point was exorbitantly more than what it is for the ASA solution. We pay Cisco for maintenance on a yearly basis. There are no additional fees that I'm aware of.
Always look for the history of the products and their evolution, as this will reflect their prices. As for the licenses, be smart and choose the ones you are going to use AS PER YOUR NEED. More features=More Licenses=More work time=Increase in Cost. Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions (i.e. "If it takes you three hours to do an analysis report and the solution you are getting has this feature to reduce your time to five minutes then you can consider this license. But, if there is a feature where you can have access to the machine from the cloud and you are always connected to the company by VPN, there is no need to buy this license").
We are in the process of renewing our three-year license, which costs approximately $24,000 USD for the thirty-six months. In terms of licensing, this product costs a lot, but this cost can save my assets that could be millions for my company. There is no choice.
The pricing for Cisco products is higher than others, but Cisco is a very good, strong, and stable technology. If we compare Huawei or FortiGate or others then the prices are lower, but the higher Cisco price is acceptable because of the stability, trust, and reliability.
The licensing is very expensive.
There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees.
The cost of this solution is high.
With respect to the routers and switches, or the core stacks that we get, they seem to be pretty comparable so I don't have any issues with the licensing. 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.
Watch out for hidden licensing and incredibly high annual maintenance costs. We bought much beefier Palo Altos for a less expensive one-time and annual cost.
Our licensing costs for this solution is on a yearly basis. Just for the firewall, it's about $1.5 million USD.
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. The Cisco license was not yearly. It was a yearly license for the firewall. For the router and switch, it was a lifetime license.
The licensing for Cisco ASA is on a yearly basis. We have to renew the Firepower module license. We are in the process of renewing this one. I just made the demand. They have the management who is charge asking about the price and payment terms on different offers.
Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions. Especially in other regions because people are very careful when it comes to spending on IT infrastructure. My suggestion is, first test it, once you see how good it is you will definitely want to renew it.
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. I would rate the cost as a six or seven out of ten.
My advice, since I have to pay for licensing each feature that I need to enable, like URL filtering, is to look at a pfSense. That is what we are doing because you have to pay for greater protection, a total solution can be very costly. We are looking at a pfSense, to bring down the total cost. The correct price point, in comparison to other platforms, is the main factor here.
Pricing is high, but it is corporate's decision.
The initial setup was complex. But, after that, to maintain and keep creating rules it was easy.
The cost is a bit high compared to other solutions in the market.
Cisco has recently become very expensive. Other solutions on the market are cheaper than this solution.
I would consider this solution on the "high end" of the pricing spectrum.
The cost is a bit higher than other competitive solutions on the market.
The cost of keeping the licensing up on the ASA is very expensive. It has a lot of positives, but the cost of going with it is really starting to be a major negative right now.
ASA pricing seems high compared to other firewalls, such as the Sophos XG models. The licensing features are getting more complicated. These should be simplified.
Commercial leasing is the best option.