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

Cisco Secure Firewall vs Palo Alto Networks CN-Series comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
472
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (3rd)
Palo Alto Networks CN-Series
Ranking in Firewalls
35th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Firewalls category, the mindshare of Cisco Secure Firewall is 8.1%, up from 6.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks CN-Series is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewalls Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Secure Firewall8.1%
Palo Alto Networks CN-Series0.5%
Other91.4%
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
Ahmed_Shalaby - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Cyber Security Engineer at Beta Information Technology
Application control excels and integration with monitoring system boosts efficiency
I am an integrator working with Palo Alto Networks CN-Series and Panorama. I have been involved with the implementation of Palo Alto Networks CN-Series The stability of Palo Alto Networks CN-Series is excellent. Application control is one of the most valuable features. Its monitoring capability…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best solutions for our company are those we have yet to implement so it will be even better in the future for us than it already is."
"Once we installed the Firepower system, we started looking at the evidence, and we found a lot of exploitations and a lot of bad things that are in the network."
"Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall made our firewall response much faster when trying to respond to any services or networks that stand out."
"It is a highly stable product. We rarely receive any serious outdates, so it works quite well."
"ASDM provides GUI for configurations, and the ASDM has made configuring ASA easy with no need to memorize CLI commands."
"I like the way Firepower presents the data. It gives you two classifications for the evidence, something based on the priority of the evidence and another classification based on the impact of the evidence in your environment. This makes it very easy to spot the evidence that is most impactful to my environment. Instead of having to go through all the evidence based on that priority, I can focus on the evidence that has the most impact on my environment."
"The TAC is always very helpful. We pay for Tier 1 support, so we get whatever we need from them. They always give us a solution. If they can't give us an answer that day, they get back to us within at least 24 hours with a solution or fix. I have never had a problem with the TAC. I would rate them as 10 out of 10."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Firewall is its ease of configuration and that it's scalable for firewalls and VPNs."
"The app inspection is very helpful for network security."
"The stability of Palo Alto Networks CN-Series is excellent."
 

Cons

"I don't have any specific improvements to recommend. However, when you compare the throughput of a Cisco firewall to the competitors, especially Fortinet, what you find is that Cisco has lagged a little bit behind in terms of firewall throughput, especially for the price that you pay for that throughput."
"License capacity needs to be extended and the vendor needs to work on the pricing."
"The ease of use needs improvement. It is complex to operate the solution. The user interface is not friendly."
"They need a VTI. I know it's going to be available in the next software version, which is the 6.7 version. However, the problem with that is that the 6.7 is going to deprecate all the older IKEv1 deployment tunnels. Therefore, the problem is that we have a lot of customers which are using older encryptions. If I do that, update it, it's not going to work for me."
"Cisco ASA is starting to get old and Firepower is taking over. All the good things happening are with Firepower."
"Everything with Cisco is expensive. My advice is that there are a lot better options out in the market now."
"In Cisco Secure Firewall, I have come across some drawbacks, downsides, or weak points, specifically that for some of the solutions or services, the user interface is not as great or lately updated as it should be; it looks old-school."
"On firewall features, Fortinet is better. Cisco needs to become more competitive and add more features or meet Fortinet's offering."
"Palo Alto Networks CN-Series could improve on its pricing as it is quite expensive."
"I'd like to see more IOPs features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If we compare it with FortiGate and the co-existing ASA, FortiGate is better in price."
"There are additional implementation and validation costs."
"The pricing is fair."
"When it comes to Cisco, the price of everything is higher. Cisco firewalls are expensive, but we get support from Cisco, and that support is very active."
"I rate the product's price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap."
"The product is very expensive."
"Pretty much everything is included in the price for what we are using."
"We pay about €2,000 ($2,400 USD) per year for licensing."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
921,028 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
Outsourcing Company
15%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
University
11%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business196
Midsize Enterprise130
Large Enterprise243
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks CN-Series?
The pricing of Palo Alto Networks CN-Series is quite expensive, rating around eight on a scale of one to ten for cost.
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks CN-Series?
Palo Alto Networks CN-Series could improve on its pricing as it is quite expensive. The SD-WAN implementation using Panorama needs enhancement because it involves a specific plugin and configuring ...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks CN-Series?
I am an integrator working with Palo Alto Networks CN-Series ( /products/palo-alto-networks-cn-series-reviews ) and Panorama. I have been involved with the implementation of Palo Alto Networks CN-S...
 

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. Palo Alto Networks CN-Series and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.