We performed a comparison between Cisco SD-WAN and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One of the most valuable features is that they have multiple SD-WAN options: you have Meraki for simple management solutions, you have Viptela, and you have the option of having any type of WAN interfaces. Presently, you can also have a single combined solution for both WAN as well as for voice, so you can have a voice bundle as well. These are major unique points of this solution."
"The integration of Layer 3 and application routing is great."
"The most valuable features are zero-disk provisioning and link load balancing on an application basis."
"The availability of services and combining different connections is most valuable."
"Installation is easy."
"Cisco SD-WAN is a very good product."
"You can easily scale the product."
"It is very stable with very good firmware."
"The support is great. They also have very good categorization. It's very good. It captures a lot of threats."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"When our customer needs some optimization, along with performance and security. If they want everything in one package, I recommend Forcepoint because they have everything."
"One of the most valuable features is having the ability to cluster multiple firewalls even if they are different versions."
"The most valuable feature is controlling the traffic and the logging. They have real-time logins for traffic logs. Troubleshooting was very easy for me."
"The blocking, based on the signal provided, is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"Technical support has been quite helpful in the past."
"I found the initial setup process to be very simple and straightforward."
"They have taken away our ability to do what we are good at, which is working on the CLI, the interface right on the router. They have limited the commands so much that troubleshooting is nearly impossible."
"The initial setup could be a bit less complex."
"If you don't have an in-house design team or outsource to a third party with expertise, the setup will be difficult."
"I would like them to add some more SD-WAN ports. We have seen one implementation where there were four ISPs. Currently, we have a maximum of two ports for ISP in this device. Therefore, we cannot connect directly, and we need other switches. There should be some option to have more than two ports for SD-WAN."
"The process of onboarding the vSmart, vBond, and vManage should be improved to make it easier to manage in general."
"The product needs to have more understanding staff in their support team. The tool needs to provide support in every stage of deployment. We did not get the expected support from their team. The product is also not easy to use."
"Some configurations or procedures could be more user-friendly. Adding a bandwidth management feature would make Cisco SD-WAN more scalable and less resource-intensive."
"The client portal needs to be improved in order to make the solution much better."
"They need to work on stability, it has not been the best in our experience."
"The solution needs to build upon its network functionality. It needs to be a bit smarter."
"It's a complicated firewall. Until you come to know the firewall inducers, most people don't like the firewall because the components for the firewall are a little bit complex. User-friendliness is a little bit tough. It needs to be user-friendly when creating policies, and pushing policies. Committing takes more time compared to Palo Alto."
"The security features need to be improved."
"Its interface is complex when compared with a firewall like FortiGate. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall needs a management console, whereas FortiGate doesn't need any console. When you have a few devices, a console is not really necessary. It's good to have a private console only when you have a lot of devices."
"This solution would be improved with the inclusion of custom reporting."
"Next Generation Firewall's configuration could be improved."
"They should provide more details on potential cyber threats."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 1st in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 86 reviews while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 13th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 39 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "A solution for integrating services to enhance up-time, performance and lower costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Good URL filtering with helpful technical support and good scalability". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, VMware SD-WAN, Juniper Session Smart Router and Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform, whereas Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW, Cisco Secure Firewall and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions 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.
