

Cisco Secure Firewall and Netgate pfSense compete in the network security category. Cisco Secure Firewall has the upper hand in integration and advanced threat defense, while Netgate pfSense is recognized for its customization capabilities and lower cost for feature expansion.
Features: Cisco Secure Firewall is known for robust security, advanced threat protection, and seamless integration with Cisco’s broader ecosystem. It offers detailed policy management and a comprehensive suite for security architecture. Netgate pfSense excels in customization, offering open-source frameworks, extensive plugin support, and a wide array of features such as Snort integration and flexible deployment options.
Room for Improvement: Cisco Secure Firewall could enhance its automation capabilities and reduce costs to remain competitive. It's also essential to expand support without the dependency on high licensing fees. Netgate pfSense would benefit from streamlined deployment, a more intuitive interface, and robust official customer support options to mitigate reliance on community resources.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Cisco Secure Firewall is recognized for its structured and guided deployment process, supplemented by comprehensive support via established channels. Netgate pfSense offers more autonomy in deployment, appealing to users who benefit from a flexible strategy and community support but lacks the structured support found with Cisco.
Pricing and ROI: Cisco Secure Firewall entails higher initial costs due to licensing and integration expenses but offers significant ROI through its extensive capabilities and integration into Cisco’s security ecosystem. In contrast, Netgate pfSense requires a lower initial investment, emphasizing cost-effective scalability and feature expansion, providing excellent value for budget-conscious buyers.
There is always a return on investment because you find you invest heavily, but your environment is secure and then you are at rest; you do not need to panic.
The biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall is that there's no waste in any infrastructure cost and licensing costs for us.
From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall is the single pane of glass, which is a huge plus for us.
I have seen a return on investment with cost savings after implementing Netgate pfSense, as other firewalls would cost me lakhs of rupees while pfSense is free.
I evaluate specific metrics and ROI by noting that our clients have become almost fully remote, so in the sense that they would not have been able to go fully remote without this investment, the ROI is almost close to 100%, definitely over 90%.
I have seen a return on investment from using Netgate pfSense, primarily through cost avoidance and reduced administrative overhead by consolidating firewall, NAT, VPN connectivity, and VLAN segmentation into one solution.
I have to provide many logs, yet problems remain unresolved, often requiring workarounds rather than solutions.
I have been working with them on firewalls, wireless, switching, and routing, and the support is the best.
They have expertise and provide solutions for the most difficult problems.
When we're down, that's $8000 an hour on a $1500 firewall.
Even when they're in the middle of deploying a new version, I've reached out and received a download link within five minutes.
He had me try several troubleshooting things, identified that the box was bad, and got me a replacement.
When something happens in the device, the failover happens very quickly without any interruption.
Cisco Secure Cloud now allows us to potentially take the management functions of Cisco Secure Firewall, move it into the cloud, and integrate it with other Cisco security products, managing everything from one single pane.
I rate the scalability as a number 10.
The next step up now is to the 4100, which gives you an additional preconfigured WAN port that allows you to easily separate networks.
Netgate doesn't come anywhere close to the scalability that its competitors do.
If I should grow into a business, then all I need to do is change the virtual machine capacity.
We have often encountered split-brain scenarios during failover processes and code upgrades, which have been persistent problems for us.
We work with a cluster with high availability, so if something goes wrong, we have it functioning.
I have Cisco Secure Firewall in hospitals, hotels, airports, and shopping malls, and I have never faced complaints of a Cisco Secure Firewall crash or anything similar.
Netgate pfSense rates a 10 for stability, and I have experienced no issues there.
Otherwise, I've never seen one have a problem. It's just rock solid.
The solution is stable.
My ongoing complaint for the last six years has been the lack of CLI functionality, which hinders my ability to work on the firewall, alongside concerns regarding deployment time.
The GUI is useless for me and frustrates me to a very high degree, which led me to switch to the CLI for configuration.
Firewall as a Service can scale to a very large extent because it is a cloud-based offering that can scale up to a very large number, which is not a problem.
You could add AI for troubleshooting with Netgate pfSense because it will be easier for new engineers.
I also think built-in dashboards for real-time throughput, packet drops, CPU and memory utilization, VPN tunnel health, and connection counts with configurable historical retention should be added for first-glance visibility.
I would like to have the ability to control all my devices from one place.
It's good to have them, however, it costs us a lot.
Basically, the license for the VPNs is for all the interfaces, and that is the thing that is really expensive compared with Palo Alto.
It's considered a premium, but people pay that price for Cisco.
The cost of the 3500 was closer to $4,000.
For smaller companies or those aiming to reduce expenses, it's a highly affordable option, and even their hardware is reasonably priced.
pfSense pricing is extremely competitive, and it delivers exactly what is advertised.
What stands out positively about Cisco is their training and support, which has effectively prepared engineers to work with their products.
This is very important to my organization, as we work extensively with security because we are a bank, so we can keep the data safe.
Cisco Secure Firewall allows me to safeguard Layer 7 or Layer 3 and manage the security rules with the business needs of my organization.
pfSense's flexibility is great. If you don't have the money to buy the NetGate hardware, anything works with it. You can toss it on any low-end piece of hardware or virtualize it if you choose to virtualize it.
We had downtime before pfSense. We've never gone down using the solution.
It is very stable, and it works very well.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Cisco Secure Firewall | 8.1% |
| Netgate pfSense | 6.6% |
| Other | 85.3% |


| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 196 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 130 |
| Large Enterprise | 243 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 172 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 34 |
| Large Enterprise | 29 |
Cisco Secure Firewall offers advanced security features like integration with Cisco products, role-based administration, and scalable VPN capabilities. Its application visibility and deep packet inspection are key in reducing IT workload while ensuring robust protection.
Known for its stability and comprehensive threat protection, Cisco Secure Firewall integrates seamlessly with Cisco Talos to enhance security intelligence. It streamlines operations with a strong application visibility and management console, helping secure infrastructure. However, there are noted challenges such as a less intuitive interface, complex cloud service integrations, and performance issues during updates. The pricing and licensing can be cumbersome compared to competitors, and there is room for expanded application and threat visibility.
What are the key features of Cisco Secure Firewall?Industries deploy Cisco Secure Firewall for tasks such as safeguarding data centers, traffic segmentation, and perimeter security. It is essential for filtering strategies at organizations with corporate networks and VPN hubs. Companies leverage it for edge security, network segmentation, intrusion prevention, and managing access control to ensure robust protection against threats.
Netgate pfSense is an open-source firewall and router software known for scalability, cost-effectiveness, and community support. It includes customizable packages for varied network management needs, offering solid performance and straightforward management for diverse setups.
Netgate pfSense provides an impressive range of functionalities including firewall capabilities, VPN options, and extensive customization through packages. Its low resource usage and high availability make it viable for businesses of all sizes, especially when dealing with tailored network demands. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in ease of use, mobile compatibility, and support for plug-ins. Enhanced centralized management, better documentation, and additional security features are frequent requests.
What are the key features of Netgate pfSense?In education and healthcare, Netgate pfSense is employed for secure connectivity and efficient traffic management, accommodating distinct demands of remote access and content filtering. Organizations in these sectors often utilize features such as load balancing and VPNs to maintain secure and reliable network operations while integrating with services like Active Directory for streamlined identity management. Small to medium-sized enterprises benefit from its affordability and robust functionality, making it a go-to choice for managed service environments requiring effective network security and control.
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.