We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Waterfall Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."Centralized monitoring, policy management, and virtualized appliances allow us to take control over our public and private infrastructure."
"The integration with Active Directory is one of the good features. Most of the customers are now looking for the Single Sign-on feature. So, being able to integrate Active Directory with the firewall is useful. It is also easy."
"The feature I like most is the SD-WAN. It allows you to manage more than one ISP at the same time. And there is a high-availability mode, so if one of your ISPs is down, you still have a backup."
"One of the nice things about FortiGate is that it can be deployed on the cloud or on-premises. You can actually do both. That's the biggest reason why I stick with this solution as opposed to something like Cisco Meraki. Another nice thing is that I can log directly into a FortiGate or get to it through their FortiCloud access products. They're pretty reliable and consistent. One of the reasons why I started using the product was their single pane of management. I can deploy their line of firewalls in conjunction with their switching and access points, and I can manage the entire network from one interface. I don't have to log into one interface for the firewall, another one for the access points, and another one for the switches. These firewalls have access point controller functionality built right into the system, so I don't even have to purchase additional devices to manage them."
"The most useful functionality of Fortinet FortiGate is the user interface, multiple engines, and their cloud with the latest integrations. Additionally, the Security Fabric tool is very good."
"Reliability is the best feature. We faced some issues when we were setting it up, but the service, portal, and administration are good."
"The main benefit is the grouping of our security monitoring."
"Overall security features and performance routing is good."
"Cisco Firepower NGFW is really easy to use right now to determine when my file requires a shift from primary to secondary status, and it can be done with automation. Earlier we used to do this with patching."
"I have integrated it for incidence response. If there is a security event, the Cisco firewall will automatically block the traffic, which is valuable."
"IPSec Tunnel and AnyConnect (of course), the context awareness was a good feature, but clumsy at the beginning. I think it's better now."
"It is a very user-friendly product."
"Ease of configuration: It has gotten a lot easier to configure compared to the original Cisco Pix."
"Once you add Firepower onto to it and you start enabling some of its features, you get some IDS/IPS involved with it and you can even do web filtering."
"The setup was straightforward. I was happy with the configuration and deployment of the solution, as it was quick."
"Application inspection, network segmentation, and encrypted traffic detection or encrypted traffic analysis (ETA) are valuable for our customers."
"This is a professional solution which has been the most valuable aspect of its use."
"The setup is pretty complex and not easy to implement."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"Monitoring and reporting could be better."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a stable solution. However, my issue is the performance only. When I use all the profiles, this affects the performance. From the beginning, I should have had a better sizing of the box."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve by integrating the web application firewall and the DDoS protection part of the solution. Having a WAF feature, web application firewall, and proxy together would be a good benefit."
"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."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"The price and SD-WAN capabilities are the areas that need improvement."
"Cisco provides us with application visibility and control, although it's not a complete solution compared to other vendors. Cisco needs to work on the application behavior side of things, in particular when it comes to the behavior of SSL traffic."
"The one thing that the ASAs don't have is a central management point. We have a lot of our environments on FTD right now. So, we are using a Firewall Management Center (FMC) to manage all those. The ASAs don't really have that, but they are easy to use if you physically go into them and manage them."
"One thing that we really would have loved to have was policy-based routing. We had a lot of connections, and sometimes, we would have liked to change the routing depending on the policies, but it was lacking this capability. We also wanted application filtering and DNS filtering."
"Cisco ASA is not a next-generation firewall product."
"The integration between the on-prem proxy world and the cloud proxy would benefit us. One single policy setting would make sense."
"Security must be increased when a new user connects over the LAN and an alarm must be generated."
"Deploying configurations takes longer than it should."
"The interface of this solution could be more user friendly. The initial set up could also be made more simple."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Waterfall Security is ranked 5th in Operational Technology (OT) Security with 1 review. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Waterfall Security is rated 9.0. 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 Waterfall Security writes "Cyber security solution used for data transmission that requires training to make use of all of its powerful features". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Waterfall Security is most compared with OPSWAT MetaDefender OT Security and Nozomi Networks.
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.
