We performed a comparison between Cisco Asa Firewall vs Palo Alto Network Wildfire based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, with all other factors being more or less equal, Cisco Asa Firewall comes in a bit ahead of Palo Alto simply because of their stronger support.
"The most important feature is the intensive way you can troubleshoot Cisco Firepower Firewalls. You can go to the bit level to see why traffic is not handled in the correct way, and the majority of the time it's a networking issue and not a firewall issue. You can solve any problem without Cisco TAC help, because you can go very deeply under the hood to find out how traffic is flowing and whether it is not flowing as expected. That is something I have never seen with other brands."
"If configured, Firepower provides us with application visibility and control."
"IPS and Snort are very important because they also differentiate Cisco from other vendors and competitors."
"I like the firewall features, Snort, and the Intrusion Prevention System (IPS)."
"The most valuable feature is the Intrusion Prevention System."
"The most valuable feature would be ASDM. The ability to go in, visualize and see the world base in a clear and consistent manner is very powerful."
"Another benefit has been user integration. We try to integrate our policies so that we can create policies based on active users. We can create policies based on who is accessing a resource instead of just IP addresses and ports."
"When it comes to the integration among Cisco tools, we find it easy. It's a very practical integration with other components as well."
"I like the IPS feature, it is the most valuable."
"The user interface, the UI, is excellent on the solution."
"I like the ASDM for the firewall because it is visual. With the command line, it is harder to visualize what is going on. A picture is worth a thousand words."
"The most valuable feature is the anti-malware protection. It protects the endpoints on my network."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"I have found the stability of this solution really good. This is why I use it."
"The ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager) which is the graphical user interface, works out, and Cisco keeps it current."
"Simple to deploy, stable."
"The most valuable feature is the cloud-based protection against zero-day malware attacks."
"The most valuable features of this solution are sandbox capabilities."
"The scalability is acceptable."
"You have better control because you define apps. You just don't define ports. You define apps, and the apps are monitored in the traffic. It is more specific than the Cisco firewall when it comes to our needs."
"The backup is the best feature."
"The most valuable feature is the improved security that it offers."
"Intuitive threat prevention and analysis solution, with a machine learning feature. Scalable, stable, and protects against zero-day threats."
"The solution is easy to use and the Panorama feature is good. The software management or the malware blocking and some authentication management system are good."
"I would like it to have faster deployment times. A typical deployment could take two to three minutes. Sometimes, it depends on the situation. It is better than it was in the past, but it could always use improvement."
"We only have an issue with time sync with Cisco ASA and NTP. If the time is out of sync, it will be a disaster for the failover."
"Report generation is an area that should be improved."
"This product is managed using the Firepower Management Center (FMC), but it would be better if it also supported the command-line interface (CLI)."
"The reporting and other features are nice, but there is an issue with applying the configuration. That part needs some improvement."
"An area of improvement for this solution is the console visualization."
"One of the few things that are brought up is that for the overall management, it would be great to have a cloud instance of that. And not only just a cloud instance, but one of the areas that we've looked at is using an HA type of cloud. To have the ability to have a device file within a cloud. If we had an issue with one, the other one would pick up automatically."
"The solution could offer better control that would allow the ability to restrictions certain features from a website."
"The stability is not the best."
"Cisco is still catching up with its Firepower Next-Generation firewalls."
"It is hard to collaborate with our filtered environment."
"I would like it if there was a centralized way to manage policies, then sticking with the network functions on the actual devices. That is probably the thing that frustrates me the most. I want a way that you can manage multiple policies at several different locations, all at one site. You then don't have to worry about the connectivity piece, in case you are troubleshooting because connectivity is down."
"I would say that in inexperienced hands, the interface can be kind of overwhelming. There are just a lot of options. Too much, if you don't know what you are looking for or trying to do."
"The graphical interface could be improved. From what I have seen, Fortinet, for example, has a nicer GUI."
"We wanted to integrate Firepower with our solution, but it didn't have the capability to accommodate our bandwidth since they only had two 10 gig interfaces on the box. We run way more than that through our network because we are a service provider, providing Internet to our customers."
"The one thing that the ASAs don't have is a central management point. We have a lot of our environments on FTD right now. So, we are using a Firewall Management Center (FMC) to manage all those. The ASAs don't really have that, but they are easy to use if you physically go into them and manage them."
"The only problem with this solution is the cost. It's expensive."
"The cost of the solution is excessively high."
"The threat intelligence that we receiving in the reporting was not as expected. We were expecting more. Additionally, we should be able to whitelist a specific file based on a variety of attributes."
"The deployment model could be better."
"In the future, I would like to see more automation in the reporting."
"The configuration should be made a little bit easier. I understand why it is as it is, but there should be a way to make it easier from the user side."
"The cost of this solution could still be improved, in particular, giving product discounts for charitable causes."
"The only complaint that we receive from our customers is in regards to the price."
More Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ASA Firewall is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 71 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 1st in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 22 reviews. Cisco ASA Firewall is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco ASA Firewall writes "Packet inspection with ASDM works well, but upgrading requires notable planning and effort". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Intuitive, stable, and scalable zero-day threat prevention solution with a machine learning feature". Cisco ASA Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki MX, pfSense, Juniper SRX and Sophos XG, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Proofpoint Email Protection, Juniper SRX, Zscaler Internet Access and Cloudflare.
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.
