We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"Fortinet FortiGate is user-friendly and affordable."
"The most valuable features are simplicity, management, and that it's constantly evolving."
"Reliability is the best feature. We faced some issues when we were setting it up, but the service, portal, and administration are good."
"It's inexpensive compared to some of the other technology out there."
"The UTM feature is quite good. FortiAP is easy to deploy because both Fortigate and FortiAP are under the same brand. Otherwise, you need to do more work on the configuration."
"FortiGate is on the cheaper end, and it offers good value."
"We use the FortiGate Sandbox to detect zero-day vulnerabilities, such as anomalies or malware, that are unknown and have not yet been discovered."
"Integration with all the other Cisco tools is valuable."
"Right now, Cisco ASA NGFW has given us a lot of improvement. We are planning to move to a new facility and will be a much larger organization."
"Its ability to discover attacks is a valuable feature. All of the other features that have to do with security are good."
"I like the user interface because the navigation is very easy, straightforward on your left side pane you have all the sites that you need to browse. Unlike any other firewalls, it's pretty straightforward."
"The features I've found most valuable are the packet captures and packet traces because they help me debug connections. I like the logs because they help me see what's going on."
"I like its integration with the AnyConnect client. I also like how modular it is. For example, I can easily integrate the Umbrella add-on into it. We are planning on adding Umbrella. We haven't added it yet, but we have researched."
"Collaboration with other Cisco products such as ISE and others is the most valuable feature."
"Technical support services are excellent."
"The central security management center and the content management center are very good."
"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."
"Next Generation Firewall's best feature is that it can be managed on one platform."
"The VPN is great."
"Forcepoint is a complete package because it has network and systems applications. Other firewalls are only for the network."
"I like the Firewall and the IPS."
"I like the IPS. IPS is the master feature. I depend on the firewall and sandbox."
"They've become quite expensive."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"A sandbox would be good in order to be able to inspect the emails containing spam and be able to validate the emails that contain malware, prior to delivering to the customer."
"Some of the software stability could improve."
"It could use more templates for third-party site-to-site VPN setups other than FortiGate and Cisco."
"I need user-behavior analytics, to find threat scenarios from inside the organization, insider attacks. That would be very helpful for us. In addition, I would like next-generation features for small and medium businesses. These businesses require UTM, all in one product. Fortinet must include it."
"I would prefer to have more detailed logs within the FortiGate products themselves rather than relying on a separate tool."
"Setting firewall network rules should be more straightforward with a clearer graphical representation. The rule-setting method seems old-fashioned. The firewall and network rules are separate from the Firepower and web access rules."
"Most of the time, when I try to run Java, it is not compatible with ASA's current operating systems."
"Implementations require the use of a console. It would help if the console was embedded."
"The visibility for VPN is one big part. The policy administration could be improved in terms of customizations and flexibility for changing it to our needs."
"The initial setup was complex."
"One of my main concerns, an area that could use improvement is in adjusting the need to buy a license to enable features."
"The security features in the URL category need more improvement."
"Cisco provides us with application visibility and control, although it's not a complete solution compared to other vendors. Cisco needs to work on the application behavior side of things, in particular when it comes to the behavior of SSL traffic."
"Something that I've noticed that Forcepoint lacks, is the training that they offer to their end-customers"
"The network interface could be better, and it could be cheaper."
"The optimization is not really ready. If you want very good optimization, you have to add it to the network."
"The solution needs to add an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile, not just policies and VPN."
"The initial setup of the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall has areas that are difficult."
"We feel the product's technical support could be better, as this relates to the solution itself, to the installation of the product, and to having a proper understanding of the case."
"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."
"Its management center should be easier to use. The management interface of Forcepoint is unique and a little bit different from some of the firewall solutions on which people might have worked before. Sometimes, the customers say that it is not very friendly, and we help them with how to use this management interface. It just takes a little bit of time, and after some time, it gets easy to manage or use. It is quite similar to Palo Alto, Fortinet, and legacy Juniper solutions. Their support should be faster. We have received complaints that they are not responding fast, which is not good for the vendor and us."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 31st in Firewalls with 39 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall writes "Highlights and helps us catch Zero-day vulnerabilities traveling across our network". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Good URL filtering with helpful technical support and good scalability". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW, Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense and Darktrace. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
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.
