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

Cisco Secure Firewall vs Zyxel Unified Security Gateway comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure Firewall
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
473
Ranking in other categories
Firewalls (2nd), Cisco Security Portfolio (3rd)
Zyxel Unified Security Gateway
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.9
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Unified Threat Management (UTM) (11th)
 

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
reviewer2399337 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sales and technical consultant at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
User has benefited from stable performance and effective completion of security tasks
I use it mostly for VPN and for some firewall solutions When considering my main use case with VPN, I can say that I got the Zyxel Unified Security Gateway, and it works fine. However, we are thinking about using a different solution based on open source because Zyxel Unified Security Gateway…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Cisco tech is always good and helpful. I would rate them as 10 out of 10."
"The IPS (In-plane switching) is the most valuable feature."
"Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall was introduced as a migration of many firewalls into one."
"The most valuable feature is that the encryption is solid."
"A stable, reliable solution used to protect the network's perimeter."
"One of the best features is the ease of use. It's also easy to teach new engineers to use the ASA CLI."
"Management Console and user profiling to define activities."
"Provides good integrations and reporting."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from web filtering, malware protection, and antivirus."
"The Zyxel Unified Security Gateway solution is stable and does its job effectively."
"This is a capable appliance and the standard features work well for us."
"The cost is very low."
"The solution can scale well."
 

Cons

"The former ASA was a pain in the ass because when someone is used to the Cisco way, the ASA was a strange thing."
"The visibility for VPN is one big part. The policy administration could be improved in terms of customizations and flexibility for changing it to our needs."
"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."
"The solution's deployment is time-consuming, which should be minimized and made more user-friendly for us."
"When you make any changes, irrespective of whether they are big or small, Firepower takes too much time. It is very time-consuming. Even for small changes, you have to wait for 60 seconds or maybe more, which is not good. Similarly, when you have many IPS rules and policies, it slows down, and there is an impact on its performance."
"We can have good scalability in different times but we don't have HA in ASAv. Some features are removed in ASAv."
"Technical support from OEM is a six out 10, as RCA report has still not been shared to date."
"Even on a smaller scale, people are finding you need HA pairs, and there's no way that the ASA can do that, at least in the virtual version."
"I have never seen it in any company that I've worked with before, and I would advise other companies not to buy it."
"Although manageable, the user interface is a little bit slow and could be improved. The advanced UI allows me to do whatever I want, but this is where the issue of speed exists."
"Sometimes it reboots when you least expect it, and that's the main issue."
"The integration capability is quite challenging. The system is very complicated, and many features are hidden."
"The product has some scalability and data management issues where improvements are required."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our subscription costs, just for the firewalls, is between $400,000 and $500,000 a year."
"We sell Cisco ASA Firewall as a bundle — the price is very cheap. If a customer were to go for renewal direct from Cisco, then the price would be quite high."
"Watch out for hidden licensing and incredibly high annual maintenance costs."
"Everything with Cisco is expensive. My advice is that there are a lot better options out in the market now."
"I like the Smart Licensing, because it is more dynamic and easier to keep track of where you are at. If we have a high availability firewall pair and they are deployed in active/standby rather than active/active, I would expect that we would only pay for one set of licenses because you are using only one firewall at any one time. The other is there just for resiliency. The licensing, from a Firepower perspective, still requires you to have two licenses, even if the firewalls are in active/standby, which means that you pay for the two licenses, even though you might only be using one firewall any one time. This is probably not the best way to do it and doesn't represent the best value for money. This could be looked at to see if it could be done in a fairer way."
"The cost of this solution is high."
"There are additional implementation and validation costs."
"We have a perpetual license for all of our firewalls. For some of the features, we purchase them on demand. The pricing is decent but it could always be cheaper, we would be happier."
"This gateway is pretty cheap."
"The price of Zyxel Unified Security Gateway is good compared to other similar products in the market."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
921,714 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%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
19%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business196
Midsize Enterprise130
Large Enterprise244
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 Zyxel Unified Security Gateway?
I cannot definitively comment on whether Zyxel Unified Security Gateway is an affordable product as I haven't done comparisons with other solutions. When our license expires, we plan to explore...
What needs improvement with Zyxel Unified Security Gateway?
The integration capability is quite challenging. The system is very complicated, and many features are hidden. I'm looking for something new that is slightly simpler. Regarding user experience,...
What is your primary use case for Zyxel Unified Security Gateway?
I use it mostly for VPN and for some firewall solutions. When considering my main use case with VPN, I can say that I got the Zyxel Unified Security Gateway, and it works fine. However, we are thin...
 

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 Fortinet, Cisco, Netgate and others in Firewalls. Updated: October 2026.
921,714 professionals have used our research since 2012.