No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco Secure Firewall vs Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 5, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure Firewall
Ranking in Firewalls
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
470
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (2nd)
Netgate pfSense Plus Firewa...
Ranking in Firewalls
25th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.3
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Firewalls category, the mindshare of Cisco Secure Firewall is 7.7%, up from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router is 0.2%. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewalls Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Secure Firewall7.7%
Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router0.2%
Other92.1%
Firewalls
 

Featured Reviews

RajeshKumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Consultant at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Unified policies have strengthened zero-trust demos and automate rapid threat containment
Feedback and Improvement Areas – Cisco Secure Firewall (Customer Perspective) From a customer point of view, there are a few improvement areas observed while positioning Cisco Secure Firewall in competitive scenarios. 1. Dashboard & Visibility Enhancements Customers often compare firewall dashboards across different OEMs during evaluation. * Competing vendors typically provide more feature-rich and visually detailed dashboards. * There is a perception that Cisco dashboards still require enhancement in terms of visualization, consolidated reporting, and built-in analytics. * Some OEMs advertise additional security capabilities clearly within their publicly available data sheets, making competitive positioning easier. In comparison, Cisco sometimes references separate documentation or explains how certain capabilities (such as anti-spam or antivirus functionality) can be achieved through integration or ecosystem components rather than native, built-in features. This creates a perception gap during customer discussions. Improvement Opportunity: * Enhance dashboard capabilities. * Clearly articulate feature availability in public documentation and data sheets. * Reduce dependency on cross-referenced documentation for commonly compared features. 2. Virtual Firewall / Multi-Instance Capabilities in Lower Models Another competitive challenge relates to virtual firewall capabilities. * Several OEMs provide virtual firewall (VDOM-like) functionality in lower-end models. * In Cisco’s portfolio, multi-instance capability typically starts from higher-end platforms such as the 3K series or higher. * Customers looking for smaller deployments with logical segmentation are often forced to consider higher models, resulting in a price jump. Competitors also offer: * Compact hardware models * Dongle-based firewall appliances * Smaller entry-level products with virtual segmentation In Cisco’s case: * To achieve similar multi-instance functionality, customers must opt for higher-tier models. * This creates a significant pricing gap in entry-level or SMB deployments. This pricing difference becomes a key factor when customers compare solutions. If competitors offer a lower-cost model with virtual segmentation, and Cisco requires a higher platform investment, customers may lean toward alternative OEMs. 3. Documentation Gaps – OT Protocol Visibility In our lab environment, we have deployed Cisco Secure Firewall and are using Application Visibility and Control (AVC) for OT network monitoring. Observations: * OT protocols are clearly visible within application visibility. * The firewall successfully identifies and classifies OT traffic. However: * This capability is not clearly mentioned in publicly available documentation. * When a feature is available and functional, it should be explicitly documented in data sheets and feature guides. The need for third-party integration depends on what we are looking for. Here I am saying that the integration with Cisco NAC can be done because RTC functionality is only available with Cisco ISE and the firewall integration. For other ecosystems, if we use a NAC solution that is not Cisco, we can still integrate it for user authentication, such as with VPN user authentication. But in that case, we don't achieve the same functionality, such as RTC with other NAC solutions. This is one aspect. Another part is that if we are using it, it always happens with some NAC solutions because we have Cisco NAC and Cisco firewall; we want consistent policy across the network, whether the user is on-prem or using VPN services. If this is a unified OEM solution, in that case, we require an agent, such as the Cisco Secure Client. That allows us to easily check the posture status of the remote user and connect to the network effortlessly. But if we are using a third-party solution, we can't achieve that. From a SIEM perspective, certain prerequisites must be fulfilled before integration with Cisco Secure Firewall can be completed. The feasibility of integration depends on the capabilities of the SIEM platform. If the SIEM solution supports the required APIs and event handling mechanisms, similar functionality can be achieved. Therefore, integration itself is generally not the challenge; the key consideration is the desired security outcome within the overall ecosystem. If the customer does not have a SIEM solution and intends to automate quarantine actions or enforce restricted access for users, a Network Access Control (NAC) solution becomes mandatory. In this scenario, the recommended NAC solution is Cisco Identity Services Engine (Cisco ISE). Automated quarantine and dynamic access control workflows are dependent on NAC capabilities. From a feature enhancement perspective for Cisco Secure Firewall, deeper NAC-driven integration adds significant value. 1. TrustSec / Tag-Based Policy Enforcement Cisco ISE supports Cisco TrustSec, which enables Security Group Tag (SGT)-based segmentation. * In traditional (legacy) networks, firewall policies are created based on IP addresses. * With TrustSec, policies are defined based on user identity, group membership, and security tags instead of IP subnets. * When users authenticate to the network, Cisco ISE assigns Security Group Tags (SGTs). * These tags are shared with Cisco Secure Firewall. * The firewall then enforces policies based on SGT-to-SGT rules rather than IP-to-IP rules. Benefits: * Significant reduction in the number of firewall rules * Simplified policy management * Improved scalability * Easier implementation of role-based access control This integration enhances operational efficiency and security posture. 2. Rapid Threat Containment (RTC) Another key capability is Rapid Threat Containment (RTC). If Cisco Secure Firewall detects malicious activity—such as malware download attempts identified via signature-based or advanced threat detection—it can notify Cisco ISE about the compromised endpoint. Based on this input: * Cisco ISE can automatically quarantine the user * The endpoint can be moved to a restricted VLAN * Access can be dynamically limited without manual intervention This automated workflow ensures faster response time and reduces the risk of lateral movement within the network. 3. VPN and Posture Assessment This functionality is not limited to wired or LAN users. For VPN users: * Authentication can be integrated with third-party NAC solutions. * However, if posture assessment (device compliance checking) is required in addition to authentication, Cisco ISE integration with Cisco Secure Firewall becomes essential. Cisco ISE enables: * Endpoint posture validation * Dynamic policy assignment * Automated remediation workflows
Jim Voige - PeerSpot reviewer
Site Manager at a consultancy with 11-50 employees
High availability routing has secured our network and delivers reliable support every day
One downside of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router is the need for a better understanding of what hardware it would run on. Right now, we're using Netgate's hardware, but I'm interested in knowing if there are other hardware options available, particularly heavier duty hardware, because the Supermicro 1537 version we have only has a single power supply, which is a shortcoming in an IT environment where dual power supplies are ideal. The pricing for the hardware of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router is steep, which is one reason I'd explore other options. I'm familiar with the costs of Supermicro servers, and I believe Netgate charges a premium for their server hardware without enough upside to justify it. The pricing is not justified.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuables feature of this product are given by the comprehensive VPN solutions it offers and its tools for troubleshooting and debugging."
"In the past, the company experienced multiple ransomware attacks, but we haven't seen any since installing ASA Firewall."
"The main thing that I love the most is its policy and objects. Whenever I try to give access to a user, I can create an object via group creation in the object fields. This way, I am not able to enter a user in the policy repeatedly."
"Firepower does a bang-up job of it, by bringing that data to the forefront."
"Its security and filtering are most valuable. Every layer of data that comes into the organization goes through it. After setting up the criteria, it automatically filters the traffic. We don't have to check it often."
"Provides good integrations and reporting."
"The grouping of the solutions helps save time. If you have a problem and you have a high-level overview of the system, you can easily dig deeper into the problem. For example, I can check to see why ASA isn't working but the reason for the outage is actually because of Duo. I can spend a lot of time working in the wrong direction because I didn't have an overview."
"The experience of deployment with Cisco Secure Firewall is very easy."
"My experience with the product is that it is a stable and good product that is easy to use."
"They are more satisfied with Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router in terms of its flexibility and customer support."
"We use pfSense and Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router to establish a VPN tunnel between our client and our headquarters to transfer data between client and our equipment; it's very simple to use, efficient, up to date, and the hardware is very available; it's very safe."
"It's very simple to use, efficient, up to date, and the hardware is very available; it's very safe."
"I do not have complaints about Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router with Firewall, VPN, and Router; it is really comfortable for use, and it does a pretty good job."
"Overall, the entire Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router product has been reliable, though some of their smaller gear aimed at remote offices hasn't been cost-effective."
 

Cons

"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."
"The performance and the level of throughput need to be improved."
"There are some limitations with SSL. Regarding the security assessment for the ISO 27000 standard, there are certain features that Cisco needs to scale up. Not all products support it, so you need to be slightly careful, especially on the site track."
"They should improve their interface and ensure that people actually know what they're doing before they start programming; that would make me happy."
"Most of the features don't work well, and some features are missing as well."
"There needs to be an improvement in the time it takes to deploy the configurations. It normally takes two to four minutes and they need to reduce this."
"There is huge scope for improvement in URL filtering. The database that they have is not accurate. Their content awareness and categorization for URL filtering are not that great. We faced many challenges with their categorization and content awareness. They should improve these categorization issues."
"Cisco's pricing is high, at times, for what they provide."
"The effectiveness of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router traffic shaping is quite good, but I am not very satisfied with the interface for control."
"I would assess the effectiveness of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router's traffic shaping as good, but I would give a six marks only for that compared to others because in the past few years, there has been a stop of improvement or lack of improvement showing in Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router."
"The pricing for the hardware of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router is steep, which is one reason I'd explore other options."
"They have to learn something more from FortiGate."
"The most significant drawback in recent years has been the cessation of firmware release downloads."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing features are getting more complicated. These should be simplified."
"The licensing has definitely improved and got a lot easier. It is customizable depending on what the customer needs, which is a good benefit, instead of just a broad license that everybody has to pay."
"The one-time cost is affordable, but the maintenance cost and the Smart Net costs need to be reduced. They're too high."
"In the past, I encountered several difficulties and misunderstandings with Cisco licensing, but now the situation has improved. The Cisco Smart Software portal is an excellent resource for keeping track of, upgrading, and researching information related to Smart Licensing and other relevant topics. It is extremely helpful. Unfortunately, since it is not my money and there is only one vendor, I am unable to provide any comments on the prices. Nevertheless, the system, along with its provision through the Cisco Smart Software portal, as well as the traditional license and subscription models, are excellent and highly beneficial."
"It was initially heavy on my pocket, but it soon actualised its worth."
"We've compared it to other solutions, like WatchGuard and other types of firewalls in that same realm. Cisco ASAs are fairly priced and very competitive with them."
"The pricing of Cisco firewalls, in the security market, is fair."
"We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user206346 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Consultant at Webernetz.net - Network Security Consulting
Mar 11, 2015
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto Networks
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto: Management Goodies You often have comparisons of both firewalls concerning security components. Of course, a firewall must block attacks, scan for viruses, build VPNs, etc. However, in this post I am discussing the advantages and disadvantages from both vendors concerning…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Construction Company
36%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business195
Midsize Enterprise130
Large Enterprise239
No data available
 

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 at large. In my opinion, Fortinet would be the best option and l use Fortinet too...
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 Fortigate is very stable, reliable, and consistent. We like that we can manage the e...
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 Cisco ecosystem, it is very simple to handle. This solution has traffic inspection ...
What needs improvement with Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router?
Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router regularly provides updates. One aspect they can improve is that most people ask whether an antivirus scanning system is available in pfSense. Other companie...
What is your primary use case for Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router?
We work with Netgate products. We are a reseller and consultant. We have been working with Netgate and Fortinet for around two years.
What advice do you have for others considering Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router?
For metrics to measure its impact, we do not measure in a formal way. We use bandwidth monitoring to check how effective the solution is. I have not encountered customers asking for additional feat...
 

Also Known As

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
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.