How does Cisco ASA Firewall compare with Palo Alto's WildFire? Which firewall is better and why?
When looking to change our ASA Firewall, we looked into Palo Alto’s WildFire. It works especially in preventing advanced malware and zero-day exploits with real-time intelligence. The sandbox feature is the most useful in discovering zero-day threats before they can get to users’ systems. One of the features we liked more from WildFire was the multiplatform deployment. It can be deployed on-premises, on the cloud, or in a hybrid system.
Palo Alto protects our network by keeping our cloud service secure across the company. Its price is affordable in relation to other solutions on the market. Wildfire integrates well with other systems of the Palo Alto family. The only downside is that the sandbox requires large file size limits. It could be useful if they provided bare metal analysis. The price is also high, so maybe it is not suitable for very small businesses.
We were using Cisco ASA to provide access to our internal network to remote employees. The hardware is very reliable with almost no failure. Cisco ASA devices can run under extreme conditions without failing. It offers a good level of protection from threats and malware. The system, though, lacks the advanced features of next-generation firewalls. But for companies looking for a basic firewall, it can be a good option.
The thing with Cisco ASA is that it is outdated. The interface hasn’t changed in years. It is complex to configure, too.
Cisco ASA is best suited for small organizations that don’t require a lot of features. However, it is outdated and there are better choices for less money. Palo Alto is a next-generation firewall with advanced threat protection features. The interface is easy to use and you can’t beat the convenience of a cloud-based solution.