Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Secure Firewall vs Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall vs Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
5.9
Fortinet FortiGate offers strong security, cost efficiency, and easy integration, saving organizations up to 30% on data costs.
Sentiment score
7.3
Cisco Secure Firewall boosts ROI with enhanced security, cost reductions, and compatibility, proving its value and efficiency over time.
Sentiment score
5.5
Users report significant ROI with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall due to cost reduction, improved security, enhanced performance, and easier management.
Sentiment score
5.7
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention offers financial benefits and high user satisfaction despite its cost, boosting revenues, especially in Italy.
Clients are now comfortable and not wasting productive hours on IT support.
The automation part is giving us a cost benefit and speed; we can react faster.
It's a very useful tool to mitigate and protect your enterprise.
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.
The biggest return on investment for me when using Cisco Secure Firewall is reliability and robust network design.
Cybersecurity ROI could be $1 or $100 million, depending on the risk of data behind it.
It offers insights into security threats, despite the inability to quantify its impact in numbers.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.6
Fortinet FortiGate support is generally effective, but some users report delays and issues with complex problem resolution and communication.
Sentiment score
7.5
Cisco Secure Firewall's customer service is praised for its knowledgeable support, though initial response times and experiences vary.
Sentiment score
5.7
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall support is skilled but slow, with calls for local support and improved response times.
Sentiment score
5.9
Palo Alto Networks' support is praised for expertise but faces inconsistent response times and communication challenges with third-party facilitation.
They offer very accurate solutions.
The quick resolution of issues with Fortinet FortiGate is due to the support of the company and the fact that the equipment is easy to work with.
I would rate the technical support for Fortinet FortiGate a ten out of ten.
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.
Unlike Fortinet where you can escalate an issue and quickly get responses from the development team, Forcepoint's process seems slow and challenging.
Technical support is sometimes slow to respond, and it takes longer to resolve issues.
On a scale of 1 to 10 for customer service for Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall, I would rate it at least 9, 9.5.
I rate technical support from Palo Alto as eight out of ten.
I have proof of this rating - when I escalate a case, I receive a reply from TAC support after two days.
Overall, I find the technical support from Palo Alto Networks quite good, although getting a hold of the TAC can be challenging and sometimes requires long phone calls.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
Fortinet FortiGate efficiently scales for SMEs, though hardware upgrades can be challenging, with virtual deployments offering flexibility.
Sentiment score
7.3
Cisco Secure Firewall offers scalable solutions with adaptable clustering, despite some licensing concerns, enhancing integration and management ease.
Sentiment score
7.2
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall excels in scalability, though some users face challenges with large-scale and cloud deployments.
Sentiment score
7.7
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is scalable, adaptable, and efficient, though cost may constrain its broad deployment.
They scale up really well from smaller models like the FortiGate 40 and 50 to bigger sites with the FortiGate 100 for more throughput - up to enterprise datacenters.
The variation comes in terms of the interfaces and throughputs, but from a security perspective, you get the same benefit, irrespective of whether you have an entry-level unit or an enterprise.
We determine sizing based on multiple factors: number of users, available links, traffic types, server count, services in use, and whether services will be published.
Scalability presents a challenge.
Compared to FortiGate and Palo Alto, it lags in configuration and other aspects.
Even with the highest one, the 4600, we still face issues, particularly when transitioning between screens; it becomes very slow.
There are restrictions in the firewall manager and limitations when deploying for cloud environments.
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is scalable and works well wherever enforcement points exist.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Fortinet FortiGate is praised for its dependable stability, minimal downtime, and robust performance, especially with regular firmware updates.
Sentiment score
7.4
Cisco Secure Firewall is stable, with some VPN issues; recent updates improve stability, highlighting the importance of proper configuration.
Sentiment score
7.9
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is stable and reliable, with praised detection and minor stability concerns in complex deployments.
Sentiment score
7.7
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is praised for its superior stability and performance, though requires careful version selection.
We're experiencing 99.999% availability consistently.
I would rate the stability of Fortinet FortiGate a ten out of ten.
Currently, we are experiencing a general outage of one of the main internet service providers of the Dominican Republic, and we have not been impacted in our operations because with SD-WAN, we have another internet service provider and we are working with the second WAN connection without any disruption.
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.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers exceptional performance and stability.
Proper sizing of the firewall models ensures that the system does not experience crippling performance issues.
 

Room For Improvement

Users seek improvements in FortiGate's performance, web interface, reporting, documentation, licensing, and training resources.
Cisco Secure Firewall is hindered by complex UI, licensing issues, outdated features, and needs improvements in scalability and integration.
Forcepoint NGFW needs UI, policy management, and pricing enhancements, along with improved support, integration, and configuration flexibility.
Palo Alto Networks needs improvements in email filtering, setup ease, user experience, support services, and enhanced security features.
Investing in a solution that can accommodate such growth would be more cost-effective than repeatedly purchasing new hardware.
While Fortinet claims to offer a comprehensive network solution, it falls short in addressing computer application issues, particularly server security.
When considering Sophos XG, which we also use, the logging and reporting functionality is notably more efficient.
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.
Firepower Management Center is quite out of date compared to other vendors.
The integration between Cisco products themselves presents difficulties, such as SD-WAN configuration.
Fast response and efficient handling of issues, similar to how Fortinet responds, would be great.
AI improvements could be beneficial, as having AI capabilities has become an important checkmark feature.
I recommend that additional features be included in a single license to avoid the need for extra licensing costs.
Palo Alto needs to focus on how to bring that technology to end users and how easy it is to use, especially in a hybrid environment where users work from various locations.
The behavioral detection capabilities could be expanded to address all threats at the perimeter, reducing the reliance on endpoint detection and response systems.
 

Setup Cost

Fortinet FortiGate offers robust features at a competitive price but can be costly, especially with licenses; long-term pricing negotiation advised.
Cisco Secure Firewall has high pricing and complex licensing, with significant ongoing costs despite potential discounts.
Forcepoint NGFW pricing varies, with costs perceived as high due to licensing models and additional feature charges.
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention is costly but valued for strong threat detection, with pricing challenging for smaller businesses.
Last year, I renewed the support for three years, which can sometimes be expensive but depends on the security benefits and how it helps us.
It offers cost savings as it is generally cheaper than the competition.
It is about 20% cheaper.
It's good to have them, however, it costs us a lot.
It's considered a premium, but people pay that price for Cisco.
There are a lot of in-place contracts for us that provide the benefit of discounts.
The costs can be high since additional features require separate licenses.
In terms of pricing, I would place Forcepoint in the middle when compared to other firewalls like Fortinet and Palo Alto.
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention requires an add-on license and is considered expensive compared to competitors like Cisco AMP and FortiGate firewalls.
 

Valuable Features

Fortinet FortiGate provides robust security, seamless integration, user-friendly interface, and cost-effective advanced threat management for diverse network environments.
Cisco Secure Firewall offers comprehensive security with robust access control, scalability, and advanced protection features, enhancing enterprise security.
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall offers comprehensive security features and integration for effective network and systems application management.
Palo Alto Networks excels in threat prevention with features like sandboxing, machine learning, and user-friendly design, enhancing efficiency.
In terms of security, we have not experienced any security flaws or loopholes, and it has proven to be quite stable.
FortiGate has helped reduce the risk of cyberattacks that might disrupt our client's production.
These features help reduce our downtime, manage the ISPs, and deploy SLAs for all the website traffic.
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.
With Forcepoint, this process is simplified compared to others like Fortinet.
The most valuable features of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall are the advanced threat protection, including features like IPS and DDoS prevention, which help avoid internal DDoS attacks.
From a configuration standpoint, it has been easy to manage.
As traditional signature-based mechanisms become less effective due to the evolving nature of attacks, this solution's focus on behavioral analysis is crucial.
We are satisfied with the analytic capabilities of Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, especially the reporting features available in the Palo Alto portal in terms of their application visibility interface, which is very good for us to get visibility on all critical applications and the associated users, as well as the risks associated with every category of traffic.
 

Mindshare comparison

Firewalls Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cisco Secure Firewall6.2%
Fortinet FortiGate20.4%
OPNsense11.0%
Other62.400000000000006%
Firewalls
Firewalls Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall0.5%
Fortinet FortiGate20.4%
OPNsense11.0%
Other68.1%
Firewalls
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention5.6%
Fortinet FortiGate16.6%
Darktrace13.8%
Other64.0%
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS)
 

Featured Reviews

Vasu Gala - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable solution with an intuitive interface and quick customer service
I have been working with Fortinet FortiGate, WatchGuard, Sophos, and SonicWall. I'm not as comfortable with SonicWall because of their UI and limitations. I prefer Fortinet above all other options. When it comes to configuration, I am confident in my ability to handle various tasks, including creating policies such as firewall rules, web policies, and application policies. Additionally, I can configure VPNs and implement load balancing, among other tasks. Overall, I feel much more comfortable working with Fortinet. Fortinet has made significant improvements by integrating AI with firewalls for threat analysis and prevention. In the past 2-3 years, they have launched FortiSASE and SIEM, and they also provide SOC services. Both Palo Alto and Fortinet FortiGate are excellent. While Fortinet FortiGate comes at higher prices, the functionality and support justify the cost. They promptly resolve firmware issues and inform all support providers about configuration changes.
Phil Shiflett - PeerSpot reviewer
Unified policies streamline network management but complex licensing requires attention
Cisco Secure Firewall has some growth opportunities in terms of visibility and control capabilities regarding managing encrypted traffic. It has the ability to analyze encrypted traffic, and there is potential for more integration with APIs and AI to enhance these capabilities. Cisco Secure Firewall needs improvement in deployment time and the capability to access the CLI during support calls. I often encounter issues when technical support uses a CLI that is not familiar to me while troubleshooting through the GUI. 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. For the next release, they should look at the features offered by competitors such as Fortinet, including the ability to perform packet capture directly from the interface. If they enhanced their troubleshooting efficiency related to packet capture for each specific rule, it would simplify the process significantly.
OusaidAbaz - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides decent protection for the LAN but complicated interface
We had some licensing issues with its web filtering capabilities. That's why we migrated our web filtering to Cisco Umbrella. Moreover, the interface is complicated. It's difficult to locate all the necessary menus and functions. For example, one of the many issues is with SSH. Even now, we haven't successfully opened the port to connect using SSH mode when we want to change the configuration. It's like a black box—not very open to changes and customization. It's simply not easy to configure. There are other problems, too. For example regarding Forcepoint's Websense component. We had a lot of problems managing the web settings within Websense. That's why we migrated to Cisco Umbrella for cloud-based web filtering. It's not that Forcepoint is inherently bad. The issue is that it's not user-friendly. It is not easy to use. The developers need to redesign the interface (GUI) for better management. It is very difficult to manage. For example, simple actions require too many clicks compared to FortiGate or Palo Alto. That's the main problem.
Partha Dash - PeerSpot reviewer
Advanced protection enables us to confidently secure against evolving threats
Palo Alto Networks can improve Advanced Threat Prevention by catering to the growing adoption of AI and agentic tooling. The Threat Protection modules should have the necessary intelligence to protect against those types of threats, as AI will be there to do a human job; this is an evolving area. From an Advanced Threat Protection perspective, the technology associated with Palo Alto Networks, such as their sandboxing environment, is quite good. However, Palo Alto needs to focus on how to bring that technology to end users and how easy it is to use, especially in a hybrid environment where users work from various locations. While Palo Alto excels in certain setups, they need to improve the user experience in distributed working conditions.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
870,623 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
19%
University
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business351
Midsize Enterprise130
Large Enterprise187
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business180
Midsize Enterprise126
Large Enterprise212
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise11
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

Which is the better NGFW: Fortinet Fortigate or Cisco Firepower?
When you compare these firewalls you can identify them with different features, advantages, practices and usage a...
What is the biggest difference between Sophos XG and FortiGate?
From my experience regarding both the Sophos and FortiGate firewalls, I personally would rather use FortiGate. I know...
What are the biggest technical differences between Sophos UTM and Fortinet FortiGate?
As a solution, Sophos UTM offers a lot of functionality, it scales well, and the stability and performance are quite ...
Which is better - Fortinet FortiGate or Cisco ASA Firewall?
One of our favorite things about Fortinet Fortigate is that you can deploy on the cloud or on premises. Fortinet Fort...
How does Cisco's ASA firewall compare with the Firepower NGFW?
It is easy to integrate Cisco ASA with other Cisco products and also other NAC solutions. When you understand the Cis...
Which is better - Meraki MX or Cisco ASA Firewall?
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) software is the operating software for the Cisco ASA suite. It supports netw...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall?
The licensing model is dependent on negotiation skills, but there is room for improvement. The costs can be high sinc...
What needs improvement with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall?
At this moment, nothing specific comes to mind regarding improvements for Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. The ma...
Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?
Arbor would be the best bid, apart from Arbor, Palo Alto and Fortinet have good solutions. As this is an ISP, I would...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention?
Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention requires an add-on license and is considered expensive compared to comp...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Firewall, Cisco ASA NGFW, Adaptive Security Appliance, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls, Cisco ASAv, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall, Cisco Secure Firewall ASA Virtual - BYOL
Forcepoint NGFW, Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall, McAfee Network Security Platform, Intel Security Network Security Platform
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, Dell, HP, Oracle, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Vodafone, Orange, BT Group, Telstra, Deutsche Telekom, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, NTT Communications, Tata Communications, SoftBank, China Mobile, Singtel, Telus, Rogers Communications, Bell Canada, Telkom Indonesia, Telkom South Africa, Telmex, Telia Company, Telkom Kenya
There are more than one million Adaptive Security Appliances deployed globally. Top customers include First American Financial Corp., Genzyme, Frankfurt Airport, Hansgrohe SE, Rio Olympics, The French Laundry, Rackspace, and City of Tomorrow.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, SkiStar AB, TRI-AD, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortinet, Netgate, OPNsense and others in Firewalls. Updated: September 2025.
870,623 professionals have used our research since 2012.