Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Cisco Secure Firewall based on the interviews we conducted with its users.
The top alternative solutions include Fortinet FortiGate, Netgate pfSense, and OPNsense.
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
Cisco Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Cisco, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Cisco Secure Firewall attracts buyers with robust integration and advanced threat protection. In comparison, Fortinet FortiGate appeals with ease of deployment and cost-effectiveness, delivering comprehensive features and superior performance. Tech buyers choose based on unique security needs and budget considerations.
Cisco Secure Firewall typically involves a notably higher setup cost, while Fortinet FortiGate is generally more economical, making Fortinet FortiGate a more budget-friendly option in comparison.
Cisco Secure Firewall typically involves a notably higher setup cost, while Fortinet FortiGate is generally more economical, making Fortinet FortiGate a more budget-friendly option in comparison.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a higher initial setup cost, offering advanced security features, while Netgate pfSense is more affordable with open-source flexibility, making their pricing models attract distinct user bases seeking different benefits.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a higher initial setup cost, offering advanced security features, while Netgate pfSense is more affordable with open-source flexibility, making their pricing models attract distinct user bases seeking different benefits.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers comprehensive security services and enterprise-grade features. In comparison, OPNsense, as an open-source solution, emphasizes flexibility and cost-effectiveness, appealing to smaller organizations. Cisco caters to larger enterprises seeking robust security, while OPNsense suits those prioritizing budget-friendly options.
Cisco Secure Firewall involves a significant initial setup cost, while OPNsense offers a more budget-friendly installation. These differences highlight Cisco's potentially higher long-term investment compared to OPNsense's upfront affordability.
Cisco Secure Firewall involves a significant initial setup cost, while OPNsense offers a more budget-friendly installation. These differences highlight Cisco's potentially higher long-term investment compared to OPNsense's upfront affordability.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in advanced threat detection, ideal for enterprises needing high-level protection. In comparison, Sophos XG's intuitive management and performance make it attractive for diverse environments, with pricing advantages, flexibility, and strong support enhancing its value.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in integration and customer service, ideal for streamlined deployment. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls offers advanced features like application-aware control and AI-driven automation, appealing to those prioritizing feature richness and long-term ROI despite higher initial costs.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers advanced threat detection capabilities with superior analytics, appealing to those needing high-performance security. In comparison, WatchGuard Firebox provides easier deployment and responsive support, making it attractive for those seeking streamlined management and cost-effective security solutions.
Cisco Secure Firewall appeals to businesses seeking robust integration within Cisco's ecosystem and easy deployment with excellent support. In comparison, Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) attracts those prioritizing advanced threat prevention and scalability, valuing its extensive configuration and higher long-term security investment.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers robust VPN features, modular policies, and advanced security, suitable for diverse business needs. In comparison, Azure Firewall integrates seamlessly with Azure services, providing centralized network filtering and automatic scalability, appealing to those invested in Azure's cloud-native solutions.
Cisco Secure Firewall involves higher initial setup costs, making it a premium option, while Azure Firewall offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to budget-conscious users.
Cisco Secure Firewall involves higher initial setup costs, making it a premium option, while Azure Firewall offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to budget-conscious users.
Cisco Secure Firewall targets large enterprises with advanced threat protection and comprehensive policy management. In comparison, SonicWall TZ attracts small to medium businesses with its swift packet handling and versatile VPN capabilities, appealing to organizations needing ease of deployment and responsive customer service.
Cisco Secure Firewall typically involves a higher setup cost due to its advanced features, while SonicWall TZ offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
Cisco Secure Firewall typically involves a higher setup cost due to its advanced features, while SonicWall TZ offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in pricing and comprehensive support, attracting cost-conscious buyers. In comparison, Sophos XGS offers advanced features with deep learning and zero-day protection. Both enable robust network security, catering to varied priorities of budget and cutting-edge technology.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels with competitive pricing, support, and seamless integration with Cisco products. In comparison, Fortinet FortiGate-VM offers strong security processing and superior cloud integration, making it ideal for complex IT environments. Each provides unique advantages, depending on organizational priorities and budget.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in integration and budget-friendly setup, appealing to those with existing Cisco systems. In comparison, Check Point Harmony SASE's cloud-based services and ease of deployment attract buyers seeking simplified management and long-term ROI despite higher initial costs.
Cisco Secure Firewall requires substantial initial investment for setup, while Check Point Harmony SASE offers a more straightforward, cost-effective setup process.
Cisco Secure Firewall requires substantial initial investment for setup, while Check Point Harmony SASE offers a more straightforward, cost-effective setup process.
Juniper SRX is ideal for cost-effective routing with robust cloud readiness and control-plane separation. In comparison, Cisco Secure Firewall excels in integrated threat management with strong application visibility, justifying its higher price by offering comprehensive enterprise security and advanced features.
Juniper SRX Series Firewall has a lower setup cost compared to Cisco Secure Firewall, which makes it appealing for budget-conscious users, while Cisco's higher setup cost suggests its advanced features and robust security capabilities.
Juniper SRX Series Firewall has a lower setup cost compared to Cisco Secure Firewall, which makes it appealing for budget-conscious users, while Cisco's higher setup cost suggests its advanced features and robust security capabilities.
Cisco Secure Firewall setup costs are typically higher due to its comprehensive feature set, whereas SonicWall NSa offers a more budget-friendly option with fewer features.
Cisco Secure Firewall setup costs are typically higher due to its comprehensive feature set, whereas SonicWall NSa offers a more budget-friendly option with fewer features.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels with advanced security features and analytics, appealing to large enterprises seeking comprehensive protection. In comparison, KerioControl is cost-effective and user-friendly, making it ideal for small to medium-sized businesses valuing simplicity and efficient deployment with strong VPN support.
Cisco Secure Firewall incurs high setup costs but offers robust security features, whereas KerioControl presents a more budget-friendly option with simpler setup requirements, making it suitable for smaller organizations.
Cisco Secure Firewall incurs high setup costs but offers robust security features, whereas KerioControl presents a more budget-friendly option with simpler setup requirements, making it suitable for smaller organizations.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers superior integration and analytics, ideal for businesses within the Cisco ecosystem. In comparison, Check Point CloudGuard provides advanced threat prevention and superior cloud integration, making it appealing for hybrid environments despite potentially higher implementation costs.
Cisco Secure Firewall typically involves a higher setup cost compared to Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, highlighting a key difference between the two in initial expense considerations.
Cisco Secure Firewall typically involves a higher setup cost compared to Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, highlighting a key difference between the two in initial expense considerations.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in advanced threat detection and seamless integration, making it ideal for existing Cisco environments. In comparison, Fortinet FortiOS offers an extensive feature set with high-performance protection, appealing to those prioritizing cost-effective investment with robust capabilities.
Cisco Secure Firewall's cost-efficiency and ease of use make it appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series attracts those seeking advanced security with detailed analytics and automated orchestration, justifying its higher cost for organizations requiring sophisticated protection and integration.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers competitive setup costs with straightforward deployment, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series tends to be more expensive due to its advanced features and complexity.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers competitive setup costs with straightforward deployment, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series tends to be more expensive due to its advanced features and complexity.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in advanced security and stability, ideal for tech buyers prioritizing comprehensive control despite higher costs. In comparison, Sangfor NGAF, with its affordability and simplicity, appeals to those seeking cost-effective solutions with integrated WAF and application control.
Cisco Secure Firewall provides advanced threat protection and scalability, ideal for enterprises needing extensive security. In comparison, Untangle NG Firewall offers user-friendly management and affordability, appealing to SMBs with its ease of use and modular licensing.
Cisco Secure Firewall highlights robust security and integration with enterprise services, appealing to large businesses seeking comprehensive protection. In comparison, Barracuda CloudGen Firewall offers ease of use and cost-effectiveness, ideal for distributed networks desiring flexible, manageable solutions.
Cisco Secure Firewall's setup cost can be higher compared to Barracuda CloudGen Firewall, highlighting initial financial considerations for deployment.
Cisco Secure Firewall's setup cost can be higher compared to Barracuda CloudGen Firewall, highlighting initial financial considerations for deployment.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in advanced VPN features and routing, suitable for enterprises needing comprehensive threat management. In comparison, Huawei NGFW integrates well with Azure, offers strong antivirus capabilities, and provides cost-effective solutions for businesses mindful of budget constraints.
Cisco Secure Firewall is ideal for small businesses needing robust integration with Cisco products, offering advanced threat protection and flexibility in deployment. In comparison, Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall simplifies operations with SD-WAN and centralized management, appealing to multi-site enterprises.
Cisco Secure Firewall setup costs are typically positioned at a mid-range level, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall often incurs higher initial expenses, highlighting a notable difference in the upfront investment required for each firewall solution.
Cisco Secure Firewall setup costs are typically positioned at a mid-range level, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall often incurs higher initial expenses, highlighting a notable difference in the upfront investment required for each firewall solution.
Cisco Secure Firewall delivers robust security features with extensive support options appealing to enterprises needing dependable protection. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series stands out for those prioritizing machine learning integration and application-based security controls, despite its resource-intensive updates and complex licensing.
Cisco Secure Firewall setup costs are generally perceived as higher compared to Palo Alto Networks PA-Series, which offers more straightforward pricing, emphasizing a cost-effective onboarding process for users.
Cisco Secure Firewall setup costs are generally perceived as higher compared to Palo Alto Networks PA-Series, which offers more straightforward pricing, emphasizing a cost-effective onboarding process for users.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers advanced VPN, high availability, and integrations, making it ideal for complex environments. In comparison, Hillstone E-Series emphasizes ease of use and affordability, appealing to users seeking straightforward solutions with strong hardware capacity and innovative features.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers robust threat detection and automated processes, ideal for users needing extensive security integration. In comparison, Juniper vSRX provides flexibility in traffic management and virtual routing, appealing to those prioritizing application filtering and competitive pricing with comprehensive licensing options.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers advanced security features suited for large enterprises, despite high costs and complexity. In comparison, Zscaler Cloud Firewall provides ease of use and cloud-based management beneficial for remote environments, though it may be expensive for smaller businesses.
Cisco Secure Firewall generally incurs higher setup costs, in contrast to Zscaler Cloud Firewall, which tends to offer a more cost-effective initial setup.
Cisco Secure Firewall generally incurs higher setup costs, in contrast to Zscaler Cloud Firewall, which tends to offer a more cost-effective initial setup.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers extensive features for comprehensive protection, appealing to buyers seeking robust traditional strengths. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks K2-Series targets those prioritizing advanced security innovations and AI-driven features, despite its premium price. Each caters to differing technical and budgetary preferences.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a lower initial setup cost compared to Palo Alto Networks K2-Series, which may come at a higher price due to advanced features.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a lower initial setup cost compared to Palo Alto Networks K2-Series, which may come at a higher price due to advanced features.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in integration with Cisco architectures, benefiting from advanced threat intelligence. In comparison, Hillstone T-Series offers flexibility with granular intrusion prevention and adaptive security. A tech buyer might choose Cisco for integration or Hillstone for flexibility and analytics.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a more complex setup process compared to the streamlined and cost-effective setup of the Hillstone T-Series, highlighting differences in initial implementation steps between these security solutions.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a more complex setup process compared to the streamlined and cost-effective setup of the Hillstone T-Series, highlighting differences in initial implementation steps between these security solutions.
Cisco Secure Firewall appeals with its cost-effective pricing, focusing on straightforward deployment and robust support. In comparison, Check Point Quantum Force justifies its premium price with advanced threat intelligence and analytics, attracting businesses seeking superior security despite a more complex setup.
Cisco Secure Firewall is noted for its straightforward setup cost, while Check Point Quantum Force scores higher costs that reflect its advanced features.
Cisco Secure Firewall is noted for its straightforward setup cost, while Check Point Quantum Force scores higher costs that reflect its advanced features.
Trustwave Next Generation Firewall offers a lower setup cost, while Cisco Secure Firewall requires a more significant initial investment. This distinction highlights Trustwave as a more budget-friendly option for initial deployment.
Trustwave Next Generation Firewall offers a lower setup cost, while Cisco Secure Firewall requires a more significant initial investment. This distinction highlights Trustwave as a more budget-friendly option for initial deployment.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers robust network visibility and threat intelligence, appealing to organizations needing strong vendor support. In comparison, Hillstone X-Series provides advanced features and cost-effective security, catering to those prioritizing high-performance data processing and simplified operations.
Cisco Secure Firewall emphasizes cost efficiency and smooth integration for strong ROI, making it ideal for budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, A10 Networks Thunder CFW offers advanced features like superior application control and traffic management, appealing to those seeking robust, long-term security investments.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a higher initial setup cost, providing robust security features, while A10 Networks Thunder CFW offers a more budget-friendly setup without compromising on essential features.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a higher initial setup cost, providing robust security features, while A10 Networks Thunder CFW offers a more budget-friendly setup without compromising on essential features.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in performance and scalability with cost-effective pricing. In comparison, AhnLab TrusGuard's robust feature set and advanced threat intelligence provide strong security capabilities. Tech buyers might choose Cisco for value savings, while AhnLab appeals for comprehensive protection.
Cisco Secure Firewall is favored for its threat intelligence and integration capabilities. In comparison, NetFortris Threat Analyzer appeals with real-time detection and easy customization. Cisco's proactive support adds value, while NetFortris offers quick deployment and analytics, catering to different buyer priorities.
Cisco Secure Firewall integrates seamlessly with Cisco infrastructure, offering advanced threat protection and lower pricing. In comparison, Hillstone CloudEdge excels in scalability and automation, justifying its higher cost with a better ROI and streamlined deployment. Both emphasize customer service and unique security features.
Cisco Secure Firewall excels in advanced threat defense and control measures, appealing to those prioritizing robust security. In comparison, NetFortris Hosted Firewall offers flexibility, scalability, and a cost-effective solution, attracting businesses seeking customizable features and ease of deployment.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a higher setup cost compared to NetFortris Hosted Firewall, making NetFortris the more budget-friendly choice for initial deployment.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a higher setup cost compared to NetFortris Hosted Firewall, making NetFortris the more budget-friendly choice for initial deployment.
Cisco Secure Firewall enjoys global recognition and seamless integration with existing infrastructures. In comparison, Venusense NGFW offers high-performance threat prevention and intuitive management. Cisco focuses on comprehensive protection and extensive support, while Venusense attracts cost-sensitive buyers with efficient management and innovative solutions.
Cisco Secure Firewall often incurs higher setup costs, while Venusense NGFW offers a more budget-friendly setup. Cisco's expenses reflect its extensive features, and Venusense provides cost-effectiveness with adequate security capabilities for organizations focusing on tighter budgets.
Cisco Secure Firewall often incurs higher setup costs, while Venusense NGFW offers a more budget-friendly setup. Cisco's expenses reflect its extensive features, and Venusense provides cost-effectiveness with adequate security capabilities for organizations focusing on tighter budgets.
