The fact that unifying policies will help us save time, costs, and be more efficient in general is very important for our company.

I don't see a return on investment with Cisco Secure Firewall; it's more of a needed tool, just something we need to do to get business done, so I'm not really looking at it as a tool that would give us an ROI.

Using Cisco Secure Firewall is financially beneficial as it provides clear settings for all members managing the solution, making it easy to teach the engineering team how it works and how to configure it, ultimately reducing the time needed to apply policies or make changes in the infrastructure.

For the last eleven months, I have been working solely with Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall, Prisma Access, and Cato. I am primarily integrating Cato for companies, and I have witnessed its rise over Cisco Secure Firewall because of its simplicity, ease of management, and deployment cost and time efficiency.

I manage a few dozen firewalls, close to 100 in total. You cannot manage each firewall manually, especially if you have local IT teams scattered across locations. It would be too much work. Centralized management attempts to align with what Gartner describes as a hybrid mesh. You hook the firewalls to the centralized management and integrate them with the device management platform. All you have to do is manage your security policies, rules, IPS signatures, and configurations from that central console. You can also take backups, restore them, and if you want to replace a device, you do it from this same console. This definitely reduces administrative overhead, costs, and the number of people you must employ to manage your firewall infrastructure.

Compared to the license of Cisco Secure Firewall, it was expensive. Right now compared with Palo Alto, Cisco Secure Firewall is kind of expensive. Basically, the license for the VPNs is for all the interfaces, and that is the thing that is really expensive compared with Palo Alto.