We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Sangfor NGAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The technical support is excellent. I would rate it as 10 out of 10. When there has been an issue, we have had a good response from them."
"The Inline Mode configuration works really well, and ASA works very impressively."
"Cybersecurity resilience has been paramount. Because there is a threat of losing everything if ransomware or another sort of attack were to happen, the cybersecurity resilience has been top-notch."
"This solution helped us to identify the key areas where we need to focus to block traffic that is malicious to our organization."
"The command line is the same as it is on the Cisco iOS router."
"The Packet Tracer is a really good tool. If someone calls because they're having problems, you can easily create fake traffic without having to do an extended packet capture. You can see, straight away, if there's a firewall rule allowing that traffic in the direction you're trying to troubleshoot."
"IPS and Snort are very important because they also differentiate Cisco from other vendors and competitors."
"It's very scalable. You can go to different models of the ASAs and they scale up to as big as you want to go."
"Sangfor NGAF works accordingly with our customers. The solution has good performance, easy to use, and integrates well with the endpoints."
"The level of support provided to local companies is good. They transform their application control and other settings according to that country."
"In four steps one can configure the entire firewall."
"Particularly good in the DPI where we can inspect inbound and outbound traffic."
"We can utilize our own network rather than paying for a private one."
"We've found the technical support to be helpful."
"Sangfor has the best capabilities for securing connections, securing web browsers, securing servers, and general threat protection."
"Sangfor is a good solution that provides a WAF and firewall solution. Most other vendors, like Sophos and Fortinet and Cisco, only provide one solution. That's a valuable feature of Sangfor."
"Setting firewall network rules should be more straightforward with a clearer graphical representation. The rule-setting method seems old-fashioned. The firewall and network rules are separate from the Firepower and web access rules."
"If the implementation was easier, it would be a lot better for us."
"The configuration in Firepower Management Center is very slow. Deployment takes two to three minutes. You spend a lot of time on modifications. Whereas, in FortiGate, you press a button, and it takes one second."
"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."
"This solution could be more granular and user-friendly."
"It is my understanding that they are in the process of discontinuing this device."
"I would like it if there was a centralized way to manage policies, then sticking with the network functions on the actual devices. That is probably the thing that frustrates me the most. I want a way that you can manage multiple policies at several different locations, all at one site. You then don't have to worry about the connectivity piece, in case you are troubleshooting because connectivity is down."
"The initial setup could be simplified, as it can be complex for new users."
"The GUI needs to be improved, lacks logic in some areas."
"The web interface needs to be improved, making it more user-friendly."
"The firewall system needs gradual improvements because there are more threats and challenges every day."
"An area for improvement would be the number of ports defined on the box. In the next release, I would like them to develop their provisioning stage of enrolling end devices."
"I believe that IAM and NGFW need to merge into a single box, instead of there being two separate box solutions."
"Lacks consistency in terms of filtering certain websites and applications."
"Sangfor could improve their interface capacity on the 5100 series model and upgrade their hardware from one gig to 10 gig. This would improve the overall throughput."
"Sangfor NGAF could improve the policies and default criteria. They could be much better."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 2nd in Firewalls with 122 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 16th in Firewalls with 13 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall writes "The ability to implement dynamic policies for dynamic environments is important, given the fluidity in the world of security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor NGAF writes "A scalable and comprehensive solution that specializes in ransomware detection". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki MX, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, pfSense and Juniper SRX, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, Fortinet FortiOS, Sophos UTM and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.
