"If configured, Firepower provides us with application visibility and control."
"The Adversity Malware Protection (AMP) feature is the most valuable. It is also very easy to use. Every technical user can operate this solution without any difficulty. The dashboard of Cisco Firepower has every tool that a security operator needs. You can find every resource that you need to operate through this dashboard."
"When it comes to the integration among Cisco tools, we find it easy. It's a very practical integration with other components as well."
"The dashboard is the most important thing. It provides good visibility and makes management easy. Firepower also provides us with good application visibility and control."
"Web filtering is a big improvement for us. The previous version we used, the AC520, did not have that feature included. It was not very easy for us, especially because the environment had to be isolated and we needed to get updates from outside, such as Windows patches. That feature has really helped us when we are going outside to pull those patches."
"The most valuable feature that Cisco Firepower NGFW provides for us is the Intrusion policy."
"One of the most valuable features of Firepower 7.0 is the "live log" type feature called Unified Event Viewer. That view has been really good in helping me get to data faster, decreasing the amount of time it takes to find information, and allowing me to fix problems faster. I've found that to be incredibly valuable because it's a lot easier to get to some points of data now."
"There are no issues that we are aware of. It does its job silently in the background."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"The documentation is very good."
"The concurrent users are perfect for us."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution is very easy to use and configure."
"I am happy with the EPLS, the radius, and I am happy with the captive portal."
"Sophos Intercept X is scalable. Currently, we have almost 30 people using it in our company."
"It has a good web cache. I used to use a DHCP server and DNS server. For my company, I use pfSense as a load balancing application."
"I've found the technical support to be helpful."
"Ease of management and the VPN integration."
"It does what it says it is going to do."
"The most valuable feature is content filtering and app control."
"Technical support is good."
"The performance has been very good. Overall, the solution is quite stable."
"We like their interface very much. It's pretty easy to use."
"It's been very easy to implement and deploy."
"The solution could offer better control that would allow the ability to restrictions certain features from a website."
"Report generation is an area that should be improved."
"One of the few things that are brought up is that for the overall management, it would be great to have a cloud instance of that. And not only just a cloud instance, but one of the areas that we've looked at is using an HA type of cloud. To have the ability to have a device file within a cloud. If we had an issue with one, the other one would pick up automatically."
"An area of improvement for this solution is the console visualization."
"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."
"Web filtering needs improvement because sometimes the URL is miscategorized."
"I would like to see improvement when you create policies on Snort 3 IPS on Cisco Firepower. On Snort 2, it was more like a UI page where you had some multiple choices where you could tweak your config. On Snort 3, the idea is more to build some rules on the text file or JSON file, then push it. So, I would like to see a lot of improvements here."
"The initial setup was a bit complex. It wasn't a major challenge, but due to our requirements and network, it was not very straightforward but still easy enough."
"I have been using WireGuard VPN because it is a lot faster and more secure than an open VPN. However, in the latest version of pfSense, they have removed this feature, which is one of the main features that I need. They should include this feature."
"The integration could be improved."
"We are at the moment looking to use it as a proxy service so that we can limit what websites people go and view and that sort of thing. That's an area I've struggled with a little bit at the moment and it could be a bit easier to set up."
"We had training from an advisor for the configuring of this solution and it was not difficult. However, if we were not trained it would have been not as easy."
"The security could be improved."
"The access control aspect of the product could be improved."
"The integration of pfSense with EPS and EDS could be better. Also, it should be easier to get reports on how many users are connecting simultaneously and how sections connect in real-time."
"The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection."
"The VPN that is available in the new version is a bit bulky and slower in speed."
"Needs more robust self-help documentation along with examples and things to watch out for."
"The monitoring is a little bit confusing."
"I would like to see lower antivirus pricing."
"It could probably be more user-friendly, and it could be more scalable with releases and subscriptions."
"FortiGate has a client DNS in the firewall, but SonicWall doesn't have that. To create or configure a site-to-site VPN tunnel, we have to give a DNS name. Currently, we have to get the DNS name from a third party and then include it in SonicWall, whereas FortiGate has its own client DNS, so it provides a DNS name, and it does not require a third party. There should be a graphical option to view the network utilization and bandwidth usage."
"In general, the company needs to think contingently and integrate more security options."
"The stability could be a lot better."
More Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
pfSense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 60 reviews while SonicWall TZ is ranked 11th in Firewalls with 36 reviews. pfSense is rated 8.6, while SonicWall TZ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of pfSense writes "Feature-rich, well documented, and there is good support available online". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall TZ writes "Easy to implement, fairly stable, and supports SSL-DPI". pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos UTM, Sophos XG and Zyxel Unified Security Gateway, whereas SonicWall TZ is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco ASA Firewall, Sophos XG, Meraki MX and SonicWall NSa. See our SonicWall TZ vs. pfSense 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.
Just purchase an anti-spam license and activate it at the SonicWall license portal.
I would like to recommend you SONICWALL HOSTED EMAIL SECURITY ADVANCED. It is more helpful and if you are using Office365 or GSuite, go for SonicWall Cloud App Security.
It is more powerful.
Hi, for SonicWall you buy a license and on the same firewall you can activate the antispam only in the ingress mode.
But there is a catch, at the moment they don't support TLS for SMTP so I would recommend their other solution, that has email security for appliance and virtualized on VMware or Hyper-V.