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

Cisco Secure Firewall vs Palo Alto Networks VM-Series vs Zscaler Internet Access 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
5.7
Fortinet FortiGate offers affordability and functionality, leading to cost savings, reduced downtime, and enhanced security for organizations.
Sentiment score
7.2
Cisco Secure Firewall offers improved security and efficiency, but cost and ROI vary based on deployment and usage.
Sentiment score
6.3
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series boosts agility, efficiency, security, and ROI, with significant cost-effective satisfaction and improved data visibility.
Sentiment score
6.5
Organizations using Zscaler Internet Access see cost reductions and improved security, achieving significant ROI within months.
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.
Customers can see data within a week, indicating a quick return on investment.
The managed service aspect of Zscaler Internet Access has allowed for reduced staffing costs, resulting in a saving of approximately 20-25% compared to prior expenses.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.4
Fortinet FortiGate customer service is responsive but inconsistent, with praise for knowledge and critique of efficiency and response times.
Sentiment score
7.5
Cisco Secure Firewall support is highly rated for knowledgeable assistance, though response times and access vary based on contracts.
Sentiment score
7.5
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series has responsive, knowledgeable support, though communication issues and high premium costs are noted by users.
Sentiment score
6.8
Zscaler Internet Access support is praised for technical expertise but needs improved consistency and availability, with ratings around 7-8/10.
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.
The support quality could be improved.
Resolving issues promptly.
They are responsive and provide high-quality assistance.
The technical support for Zscaler Internet Access is rated around seven out of ten due to some response time issues and the engagement model.
I find customer support to be quite adequate
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.9
Fortinet FortiGate scales well when correctly sized, though design flaws and licensing issues can cause problems.
Sentiment score
7.2
Cisco Secure Firewall offers scalability and integration, though licensing complexity and scalability challenges in growth may concern some users.
Sentiment score
7.4
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series offers high scalability and adaptability, with some configuration challenges but generally positive user experiences.
Sentiment score
7.5
Zscaler Internet Access offers scalable cloud-based services, supporting large user bases despite occasional bandwidth and data center reliability issues.
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.
They are easy to upgrade, and with credit licensing, they scale effectively according to demand.
The solution is scalable and can easily handle an increase in the number of users.
It is easy to use with an excellent graphical user interface and extensive documentation, which contributes to its high scalability.
I find Zscaler Internet Access to be highly scalable, which was one of the reasons for choosing it.
Zscaler Internet Access is scalable and has points of presence across the globe to ensure low latency and reliable connections.
They require close to 200,000 megabits per second, and this bandwidth requirement has posed problems for both Zscaler and Netskope.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Fortinet FortiGate is praised for stability and reliability, with minor bugs, quickly addressed by regular firmware updates.
Sentiment score
7.2
Cisco Secure Firewall is highly reliable with minimal outages, though occasional upgrade issues are typically fixed with updates.
Sentiment score
8.1
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is highly stable, with minor issues during updates, making it a robust choice for users.
Sentiment score
7.3
Zscaler Internet Access is praised for stability and performance, with minor latency issues noted and quickly resolved past incidents.
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.
Hardware is generally very stable.
I have not experienced any major problems or downtime.
Perfection is unlikely as the dynamic nature of traffic and constant changes can result in occasional bugs despite regular updates.
Zscaler Internet Access is stable and capable of building resilient architectures.
Zscaler Internet Access is very stable, and I would rate its stability as nine out of ten.
 

Room For Improvement

Fortinet FortiGate needs simplified interface, expanded features, better stability, improved support, and competitive pricing for enhanced user experience.
Cisco Secure Firewall faces criticism for its complex GUI, high costs, and demands better features, integration, and performance improvements.
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series needs UI, reporting, integration, cloud compatibility, scalable features, clear pricing, and enhanced AI capabilities.
Zscaler Internet Access needs improved integration, user interface, scalability, and lower costs, with enhanced support and security features.
Investing in a solution that can accommodate such growth would be more cost-effective than repeatedly purchasing new hardware.
The constant daily revisions necessitate meticulous identification of the relevant documents to prevent the use of outdated information that could jeopardize our environment.
While Fortinet claims to offer a comprehensive network solution, it falls short in addressing computer application issues, particularly server security.
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.
Integration with CSIRT across all use levels would make it easier for administrators to stay updated on the blocked entities without manual intervention.
Most customers go for partner-enabled support, which involves multiple layers, leading to delays.
When managing the firewall, it involves a Strata Cloud web browser that requires improvement to enhance deployment ease and call center efficiency.
The response time and engagement model for technical support could be improved to handle complex outages more efficiently.
In future updates, I would like to see some of the features bundled into the existing product set, perhaps more AI features and a refreshed interface.
One feature I am missing is the ability to connect automatically to internal monitoring systems.
 

Setup Cost

Fortinet FortiGate offers competitive pricing with clear licensing, value bundles, and cost-effective performance features for enterprise buyers.
Cisco Secure Firewall is costly but offers robust support and reliability; licensing complexity can be mitigated by smart licensing.
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series offers robust security and flexible pricing but requires careful licensing for cost-effectiveness.
Zscaler Internet Access is costly but valued for features, global coverage, scalability, and suitability for large enterprises.
FortiGate is priced lower than Palo Alto.
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 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.
Palo Alto is expensive in terms of pricing, particularly when comparing features to cost.
The cost involves purchasing through a vendor, which might mark up due to the supply chain.
Pricing for Palo Alto Networks is higher than other OEMs, but considering the robustness and features, it gains customer trust.
Zscaler Internet Access is recognized as an expensive solution.
Zscaler Internet Access is less expensive than competitors like Palo Alto, offering a premium service justified by security enhancements and cost-effective scalability.
 

Valuable Features

Fortinet FortiGate is favored for its security, VPN, ease of use, SD-WAN, advanced protection, and affordability.
Cisco Secure Firewall provides robust security, scalability, and central management, with intuitive tools for efficient threat protection and network monitoring.
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series offers advanced threat management, scalability, and security for cloud and data center environments with intuitive features.
Zscaler Internet Access enhances security with robust features, seamless integration, and efficient threat protection for remote networks.
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.
We use these tools to prevent all known and unknown threats using Palo Alto Networks' Wildfire and other data filtering tools to gather information, analyze traffic, manage malicious traffic, and offer visibility, control, and attack prevention.
Palo Alto's robust threat intelligence supports new updates, and I can open cases directly with their Threat Intelligence team.
The DNS security significantly enhances security through visibility and detection, allowing control over crucial traffic like DNS, which is often exploited by ransomware.
The most valuable feature for me is the ability to see how my network and traffic looks with modules like analytics and insights.
Some of the most valuable features of Zscaler Internet Access include secure web gateways, URL filtering, data loss prevention, anti-malware defense, file extension blocking, and a comprehensive categorization system.
 

Mindshare comparison

Firewalls
Firewalls
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

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.
RonnieYazdani - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly CLI and efficient dashboard streamline operations with robust security features
I find Palo Alto Networks VM-Series easy to deploy, and none of my customers have had significant complaints. My customers have high certifications provided by Palo Alto Networks. The friendly dashboard and the ability to easily command and use the CLI make Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a better product. It offers robust solutions, making it valuable to my customers.
AshwaniTyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers good reliability and availability to users
Sometimes, cost is one component that customers complain about, especially if they compare it with some of its competitors. Zscaler's pricing seems to be a bit on the higher side. I think the pricing model is also something that the tool can probably look into to optimize or improve for the customer so that it can be a competitive tool commercially. The solution's technical support needs to be improved, especially by offering a better support structure for different geographical areas.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
865,670 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
21%
University
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
6%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
University
6%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
Features comparison between Palo Alto and Fortinet firewalls
In the best tradition of these questions, Feature-wise both are quite similar, but each has things it's better at, it...
How does Azure Firewall compare with Palo Alto Networks VM Series?
Both products are very stable and easily scalable. The setup of Azure Firewall is easy and very user-friendly and the...
Which is the better security solution - Cisco Umbrella or Zscaler?
Cisco Umbrella and Zscaler Internet Access are two broad-spectrum Internet security solutions that I have tried. Zs...
Which is better, Zscaler internet access or Netsckope CASB?
We researched Netskope but ultimately chose Zscaler. Netskope is a cloud access security broker that helps identify ...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

FortiGate 60b, FortiGate 60c, FortiGate 80c, FortiGate 50b, FortiGate 200b, FortiGate 110c, FortiGate, Fortinet Firewall
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Firewall, Cisco ASA NGFW, Adaptive Security Appliance, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls, Cisco ASAv, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall
No data available
ZIA
 

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.
Warren Rogers Associates
Ulster-Greene ARC, BanRegio, HDFC, Ralcorp Holdings Inc., British American Tobacco, Med America Billing Services Inc., Lanco Group, Aquafil, Telefonica, Swisscom, Brigade Group
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls. Updated: August 2025.
865,670 professionals have used our research since 2012.