We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"All of the features of Fortinet FortiGate are useful and the security protection is good."
"In terms of security, we have not experienced any security flaws or loopholes, and it has proven to be quite stable."
"The feature I like most is the SD-WAN. It allows you to manage more than one ISP at the same time. And there is a high-availability mode, so if one of your ISPs is down, you still have a backup."
"Its performance in fulfilling our requirements has been satisfactory."
"Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"The network security and cloud security are most valuable."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are remote access, web filtering, and IPS."
"You do not have to do everything through a command line which makes it a lot easier to apply rules."
"Its ability to discover attacks is a valuable feature. All of the other features that have to do with security are good."
"An eight because it's a good security solution. It's more mature than its competitors."
"The content filtering is good."
"Valuable features include AnyConnect, double translations, and an independent IPS module."
"My confidence continues to build upon using Cisco firewalls."
"The stability of the solution is very good. We can see that it gets even better with every release."
"The monitoring dashboard is valuable to us for troubleshooting."
"It does give certain protection for everything that is well configured on our McAfee server. We have good protection with it. If we could find a feature and make it work, it would work perfectly, there would be no bugs, and it would be really good."
"The user interface could be improved to make it less confusing and easier to set up."
"If they could extend their fabric towards other vendor environments for integration, that would be great."
"Some of the software stability could improve."
"The cloud management and automation capability could be improved."
"The sniffing packets or packet captures, can be simplified and improved because it's a little confusing."
"Quality control on their firmware versions needs improvement. When they introduce new firmware, there tend to be bugs."
"The feedback that I have received is that the performance could be better, and the user experience is not as good compared to a previous solution we used. It could be more user-friendly. Of course, it still works fine for our operations."
"Its reporting capabilities can be improved. It should have some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities and some degree of customization. The basic reporting that it currently has is not sufficient to create more usable reports. It needs some sort of out-of-the-box reporting. They try to make customers purchase FortiAnalyzer for this kind of reporting, which is an additional cost. Other firewall vendors, such as SonicWall and Sophos, provide this sort of reporting without any additional cost."
"The phishing emails could be improved."
"I think that the solution can be improved with the integration of application-centric infrastructure. It could be used to have better solutions in one box."
"The cloud does not precisely mimic what is on-premises."
"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."
"Integration aspects and traffic shaping need improvement."
"The license system is also good but it's not very impressive. It's a very regular licensing system. They call it a smart license which means that your device will connect to the internet. This is a little bit of a headache for some customers. It doesn't make the customer happy because most of the customers prefer not to connect their firewall or system to the internet."
"I would like to see more configurable feature parity with Cisco ASA, which is the legacy product that Cisco is moving away from. When configuring remote access VPN, not all of the options are there. You have to download another tool, which means that the configuration takes a little bit longer with Cisco Secure Firewall. Though it's getting there, there are still some features lagging behind."
"We don't have any serious problems. The firewall models that we have are quite legacy, and they have slower performance. We are currently investigating the possibility of migrating to next-generation firewalls."
"Customer support and AV are both lacking and are really hard to come to you when the product is installed. Those are the two major points that they need to work on."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is rated 7.0. 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 McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] writes "For managing multiple MFE firewalls it is incredibly handy but it could be easier for customers to migrate from one version to another. ". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is most compared with .
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.