Cisco Secure Firewall vs Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Fortinet Logo
123,063 views|89,961 comparisons
90% willing to recommend
Cisco Logo
58,582 views|32,836 comparisons
83% willing to recommend
Palo Alto Networks Logo
26,212 views|16,745 comparisons
96% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary
Updated on Jul 11, 2023

We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.

Features: Cisco Secure Firewall is commended for its threat defense, dashboard visibility, seamless integration with other Cisco products, and ease of use. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are highly regarded for their embedded machine learning, robust security capabilities, and intuitive interface.

Both the Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have numerous areas for improvement. The Cisco Secure Firewall needs enhancement in network performance, policy administration, advanced features, management interface, patching and bug fixing, integration with other tools, and centralized management. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls can improve in terms of customization, next-generation capabilities, rule creation, monitoring interface, bug fixing, configuration simplicity, support processes, ACC tool, IPv6 support, VPN functionality, GUI interface, training materials, SSL inspection, and external dynamic list feature.

Service and Support: Customer opinions on the customer service of Cisco Secure Firewall vary, as some customers appreciate the technical support they receive, while others encounter delays and challenges. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls also receive mixed reviews for their customer service. While some customers commend the expertise of their support team, others express frustration with contacting the team and enduring lengthy wait times.

Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Cisco Secure Firewall can be more or less complex depending on the user's familiarity and environment. The initial setup for Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is described as simple, uncomplicated, and effortless. Users appreciate its user-friendly and efficient design, with readily available training materials for easy comprehension.

Pricing: Reviewers have differing opinions on the setup cost of Cisco Secure Firewall. Some consider it expensive due to additional expenses for licensing, support, and hardware. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are generally acknowledged to have higher pricing. Reviewers note that Palo Alto Networks offers competitive hardware prices and discounts for multi-year licenses.

Comparison Results: Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is the preferred choice when compared to Cisco Secure Firewall. Users find the initial setup of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to be straightforward and easy. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls stands out for its embedded machine learning capabilities, strong security features, and user-friendly interface.

To learn more, read our detailed Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Q&A Highlights
Question: Which is the best IPS - Cisco Firepower or Palo Alto?
Answer: Palo Alto's Vulnerability Protection (IPS) has a good rating from NSS Labs and allows the use of Suricata and Snort signatures. The PAN-OS 10 release includes local machine learning that protects against zero-day attacks.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"It can expand easily.""The interface is very good.""The solution is very user-friendly.""The features that we have found most valuable are the SSL VPN and the User Portal.""We use a southern institution that's audited for IT security and the reporting that automatically comes off the unit makes it much easier to meet compliance standards and makes it easier as far as the amount of time that has to be spent to compile that information. If you get your reporting set up correctly when you initially set it up, you just select the one you want and hit print. The auditing trail on it is the best feature.""The scalability is good in Fortinet FortiGate.""This is an easy solution to deploy.""The usage in general is pretty good."

More Fortinet FortiGate Pros →

"We definitely feel more secure. We have more control over things going in and out of our network.""What I found the most valuable about Cisco Secure Firewall is that if a client is educated about the solution, it can help him or her avoid many problems and mistakes.""With Cisco, there are a lot of features such as the network map. Cisco builds the whole network map of the machines you have behind your firewall and gives you insight into the vulnerabilities and attributes that the host has. Checkpoint and Fortinet don't have that functionality directly on the firewall.""It protects our network.""The most valuable feature would be ASDM. The ability to go in, visualize and see the world base in a clear and consistent manner is very powerful.""Logging is great. It will show when it reaches its capacity before it is too late, unless you have bursts of traffic.""Everything is all documented in the file or in the command line script that gets uploaded to the device. It gives us great visibility.""It joins all branches and permits employees to work outside their offices, but everything is based on high securities standards (PCI compliance)."

More Cisco Secure Firewall Pros →

"This solution not only provides better security than flat VLAN segments but allows easy movement through the lifecycle of the server.""The technical support is great.""The best feature is the packet inspection; compared to solutions like Cisco and FortiGate, Palo Alto's packet inspection is much less CPU intensive, allowing it to detect threats embedded within packages more quickly and efficiently.""The performance of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is the most valuable feature.""We like the fact that this product can provide multiple layers of protection depending on our clients requirements, and can be configured to whatever level of protection and the specific protocols that they want.""The user experience is good and the configuration is very easy.""This is arguably the best security protection that you can buy.""The management options are good."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pros →

Cons
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve the integration with Active Directory. Additionally, I would like to have a Cloud Controller, such as they do in the Cisco Meraki solution.""The solution lacks multi-language support.""I would like some automated custom reporting.""The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement.""I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE.""The improvement is related to logs. Instead of the CLI, we should be able to have more insights into the logs of the firewall in the GUI.""One of the features that I would like to have is to do with endpoint production, it should be integrated. For example, the firewall gets notified of any kind of forensic event that needs to be done, such as if there is a ransomware attack and how it originated, all those records have to be available from the firewall, which is not.""Their software support needs improvement. I would prefer to have better support for bug fixes. Sometimes, we open a ticket, and it is very difficult to get a solution. Specifically, we are not at all happy with their support for load balancing."

More Fortinet FortiGate Cons →

"A major area of improvement would be to have more functionality in public clouds, especially in terms of simplifying it. The high availability doesn't work right now because of the limitations in the cloud.""Deploying configurations takes longer than it should.""They need a user-friendly interface that we could easily configure.""<p>If there is old hardware, or appliances, it does not necessarily work with the new Cisco generation firewalls.""It doesn't have Layer 7 security.""In the past though, colleagues have had issues during the upgrade process. The failover didn't work and production was down.""It is confusing to have two management interfaces, e.g., ASDM and Firepower Management Center.""Its user interface is good, but it could be better. Currently, you have to know what to do before you can manage a device. If you don't know what to do, you can mess things up. There are some devices that are easier, such as FortiGate. The user interface of FortiGate is more intuitive. It is very easy to log in and configure things."

More Cisco Secure Firewall Cons →

"Could also use better customer support.""The initial configuration is complicated to set up.""The level of control and granularity in terms of rule customization could be enhanced. However, compared to our previous solution, Palo Alto provides much better drill-down capabilities.""I think automation and machine learning can be improved to make bulk configurations simpler, easier, and faster""Palo Alto should improve their support. It's sometimes difficult to get the right technician or engineer to fix the problem as soon as possible.""When you delete and add a new rule, because of the one hundred rule limit, if the new rule has an ID that is greater than one hundred, even though you have fewer than that, it will not work.""The reports it provides are not helpful.""It is a complete product, but the SSL inspection feature requires some improvements. We need to deploy certificates at each end point to completely work out the UTM solutions. If you enable SSL encryption, it is a tedious process. It takes a lot of time to deploy the certificates to all endpoints. Without SSL inspection, UTM features will not work properly. So, we are forced to enable this SSL inspection feature."

More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Fortinet has one or two license types, and the VPN numbers are only limited by the hardware chassis make."
  • "These boxes are not that expensive compared to what they can do, their functionality, and the reporting you receive. Fortinet licensing is straightforward and less confusing compared to Cisco."
  • "Go for long term pricing negotiated at the time of purchase."
  • "Work through partners for the best pricing."
  • "The value is the capability of having multiple services with one unique license, not having the limitation per user licensing schema, like other vendors."
  • "Easy to understand licensing requirements."
  • "​We saved a bundle by not needing all the past appliances from an NGFW.​"
  • "The cost is too high... They have to focus on more features with less cost for the customer. If you see the market, where it's going, there are a lot of players offering more features for less cost."
  • More Fortinet FortiGate Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Always plan ahead for three years. In other words, do not buy a firewall on what your needs are today, but try to predict where you will be three years from now in terms of bandwidth, security requirements, and changes in organizational design."
  • "I have to admit that the price is high. But I think it's worth it if the stability of your solution counts for you."
  • "It has a great performance-to-price value, compared to competitive solutions."
  • "Spec the right hardware model and choose the right license for your needs."
  • "Everything with Cisco is expensive. My advice is that there are a lot better options out in the market now."
  • "To discuss with Cisco Systems or their partners to gain the optimal price and to not consider, without verifying, the false information that Cisco ASA is very expensive."
  • "Cisco devices are for sure costly and budget could be an important constrain on selecting them as our security solution."
  • "​Price point is too high for features and throughput available.​"
  • More Cisco Secure Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Annually, the licensing costs are too much."
  • "Pricing is yearly, but it depends. You could pay on a yearly basis, or every three years. If you want to add a device or two, there would be an additional cost. Also, if you want to do an assessment, or other similar add-on, you have to pay accordingly for the additional service."
  • "It will be worth your time to hire a contractor to set it up and configure it for you, especially if you are not very knowledgeable with PA firewalls."
  • "Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have."
  • "The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that."
  • "The price of this product should be reduced."
  • "The pricing is competitive in the market."
  • "This is an expensive product, which is why some of our customers don't adopt it."
  • More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Comparison Review
    Anonymous User
    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 the management options: How to add and rename objects. How to update a device. How to find log entries. Etc. Cisco ASA Fast Management Suite: The ASDM GUI is really fast. You do not have to wait for the next window if you click on a certain button. It simply appears directly. On the Palo, each entry to add, e.g., an application inside a security rule, takes a few seconds. Better “Preview CLI Commands”: I am always checking the CLI commands before I send them to the firewall. On the Cisco ASA, they are quite easy to understand. I know, Palo Alto also offers the “Preview Changes”, but it takes a bit more time to recognize all XML paths. Better CLI Commands at all: For Cisco admins it is very easy to parse a “show run” and to paste some commands into another device. This is not that easy on a Palo Alto firewall. First, you must change the config-output format, and second, you cannot simply paste many lines into another device, since the ordering of these lines is NOT correct by default. That is, it simply doesn’t work. ACL Hit Count: I like the hit counts per access list entry in the GUI. It quickly reveals which entries are used very often and which ones are never used. On the… Read more →
    Answers from the Community
    David Prieto
    Umesh Wadhwa - PeerSpot reviewerUmesh Wadhwa
    Real User

    Pricewise Cisco. But PA has better rating.

    Bingyu Zhang - PeerSpot reviewerBingyu Zhang
    User

    Palo Alto is better.

    Nguyen The  Huy - PeerSpot reviewerNguyen The Huy
    Real User

    In my Oppinion, Palo Alto is better than Cisco. You can refer in NSS Lab 2018 & 2019 DCSG-SVM, NSS-labs-NGIPS-Comparative-Report, and some report from Forester about Zero Trust Architecture, and Gartner SASE report to discus more advantages of Palo Alto in the future 

    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer: When you compare these firewalls you can identify them with different features, advantages, practices and usage at… more »
    Top Answer:From my experience regarding both the Sophos and FortiGate firewalls, I personally would rather use FortiGate. I know… more »
    Top Answer:As a solution, Sophos UTM offers a lot of functionality, it scales well, and the stability and performance are quite… more »
    Top Answer:One of our favorite things about Fortinet Fortigate is that you can deploy on the cloud or on premises. Fortinet… more »
    Top Answer:It is easy to integrate Cisco ASA with other Cisco products and also other NAC solutions. When you understand the Cisco… more »
    Top Answer: Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) software is the operating software for the Cisco ASA suite. It supports… more »
    Top Answer:Azure Firewall Vs. Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls Both solutions provide stellar stability and security. Azure… more »
    Top Answer:In the best tradition of these questions, Feature-wise both are quite similar, but each has things it's better at, it… more »
    Top Answer:Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have both great features and performance. I like that Palo Alto has regular threat… more »
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    FortiGate 60b, FortiGate 60c, FortiGate 80c, FortiGate 50b, FortiGate 200b, FortiGate 110c, FortiGate
    Cisco ASA Firewall, Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Firewall, Cisco ASA NGFW, Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls, Cisco ASAv, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall
    Palo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall
    Learn More
    Overview

    Fortinet FortiGate enhances network security, prevents unauthorized access, and offers robust firewall protection. Valued features include advanced threat protection, reliable performance, and a user-friendly interface. It improves efficiency, streamlines processes, and boosts collaboration, providing valuable insights for informed decision-making and growth.

    Cisco Secure Firewall stands as a robust and adaptable security solution, catering to organizations of all sizes. It's designed to shield networks from a diverse array of cyber threats, such as ransomware, malware, and phishing attacks. Beyond mere protection, it also offers secure access to corporate resources, beneficial for employees, partners, and customers alike. One of its key functions includes network segmentation, which serves to isolate critical assets and minimize the risk of lateral movement within the network.

    The core features of Cisco Secure Firewall are multifaceted:

    • Advanced threat protection is achieved through a combination of intrusion prevention, malware detection, and URL filtering technologies.
    • For secure access, the firewall presents multiple options, including VPN, remote access, and single sign-on.
    • Its network segmentation capability is vital in creating barriers within the network to safeguard critical assets.
    • The firewall is scalable, effectively serving small businesses to large enterprises.
    • Management is streamlined through Cisco DNA Center, a central management system.

    The benefits of deploying Cisco Secure Firewall are substantial. It significantly reduces the risk of cyberattacks, thereby enhancing the security posture of an organization. This security also translates into increased productivity, as secure access means uninterrupted work. Compliance with industry regulations is another advantage, as secure access and network segmentation align with many regulatory standards. Additionally, it helps in reducing IT costs by automating security tasks and simplifying management processes.

    In practical scenarios, Cisco Secure Firewall finds diverse applications. It's instrumental in protecting branch offices from cyberattacks, securing remote access for various stakeholders, safeguarding cloud workloads, and segmenting networks to isolate sensitive areas.

    User reviews from PeerSpot reflect an overall positive experience with the Cisco Secure Firewall. Users appreciate its ease of configuration, good management capabilities, robust protection, user-friendly interface, and scalability. However, some areas for improvement include better integration capabilities with other vendors, maturity, control over bandwidth for end-users, and addressing software bugs.

    In summary, Cisco Secure Firewall is a comprehensive, versatile, and reliable security solution that effectively meets the security needs of various organizations. It offers a balance of advanced protection, user-friendly management, and scalability, making it a valuable asset in the realm of network security.

    Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are next-generation firewalls used for security to protect networks from threats and attacks. It is used for perimeter security, data center protection, and managing secure access to environments. Users highlight the NGFW's effectiveness in providing comprehensive security without impacting network performance. Users appreciate its ease of use, particularly in setup and ongoing management, making it a favored choice for businesses looking to secure their cloud environments.

    The firewall provides application control, malware protection, scalability, stability, user-friendly interface, threat hunt capabilities, application visibility and awareness, URL filtering, traffic monitoring, machine learning for attack prevention, a unified platform for all security capabilities, DNS security, VPN, and embedded machine learning. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is easy to manage, reliable, and balances security and network performance well. It also provides complete visibility through logs and alerting.

    Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Features

    Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls has many valuable key features. Some of the most useful ones include:

    • Secure Application Enablement (App-ID, User-ID, Content-ID)
    • Malware Detection and Prevention (threat prevention service, buffer overflows and port scans, anti-malware capabilities, command-and-control protection, and WildFire)
    • DNS Security (URL filtering, predict and block malicious domains, signature-based protection, extensible cloud-based architecture)
    • Panorama Security Management (including graphical views and analytics, manage rules and dynamic updates, customizable application command center (ACC), log collection mode, physical or virtual appliance)
    • Threat Intelligence (high-fidelity threat intelligence, priority alerts, automatic extraction and sharing of prevention indicators, native integration with Palo Alto Networks products)

    Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Benefits

    There are several benefits to implementing Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. Some of the biggest advantages the solution offers include:

    • Dedicated management interface for managing and initial configuration of the device
    • Regular threat signatures and updates
    • Import addresses and URL objects from the external server
    • Configure and manage with REST API integration
    • Great throughput and connection speed is fair even in high traffic load
    • Deep visibility into the network activity through Application and Command Control
    • Easy to manage and very user friendly

    Reviews from Real Users

    Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls users.

    A Solutions Architect at a communications service provider says, “The product stability and level of security are second to none in the industry. We value the security of our client's infrastructure so these features are valuable to us. An example of a very valuable feature behind Palo Alto is the application-aware identifiers that help the firewall know what its users are trying to do. It can block specific activities instead of just blocking categories. For example, you can block an application, or all unknown applications.”

    PeerSpot user Gerry H., CyberSecurity Network Engineer at a university, mentions that the solution has a “Nice user interface, good support, is stable, and has extensive logging capabilities.” He also adds, “Wildfire has been a very good feature. This solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is 100% important to us. This is a great feature.”

    Eric S., Network Analyst at a recreational facilities/services company, states, "With its single pane of glass, it makes monitoring and troubleshooting a bit more homogeneous. We are not looking at multiple platforms and monitoring management tools. It is more efficient from that perspective. It is more of a common monitoring and control system for multiple aspects of what used to be different systems. It provides efficiency and time savings."

    Sample Customers
    1. Amazon Web Services 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Cisco 5. Dell 6. HP 7. Oracle 8. Verizon 9. AT&T 10. T-Mobile 11. Sprint 12. Vodafone 13. Orange 14. BT Group 15. Telstra 16. Deutsche Telekom 17. Comcast 18. Time Warner Cable 19. CenturyLink 20. NTT Communications 21. Tata Communications 22. SoftBank 23. China Mobile 24. Singtel 25. Telus 26. Rogers Communications 27. Bell Canada 28. Telkom Indonesia 29. Telkom South Africa 30. Telmex 31. Telia Company 32. 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.
    SkiStar AB, Ada County, Global IT Services PSF, Southern Cross Hospitals, Verge Health, University of Portsmouth, Austrian Airlines, The Heinz Endowments
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Comms Service Provider16%
    Computer Software Company9%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization20%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Comms Service Provider8%
    Manufacturing Company6%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Government8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization20%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Comms Service Provider9%
    Government6%
    REVIEWERS
    Comms Service Provider15%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Educational Organization9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business48%
    Midsize Enterprise23%
    Large Enterprise30%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business27%
    Midsize Enterprise32%
    Large Enterprise41%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business35%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise42%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise31%
    Large Enterprise45%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business36%
    Midsize Enterprise27%
    Large Enterprise38%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise58%
    Buyer's Guide
    Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 161 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6. 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 Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Juniper SRX Series Firewall, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and OPNsense. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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.