We performed a comparison between Cisco SD-WAN and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution provides good consolidation, centralization, and manageability for edge routers."
"I have found the performance and the Zero-Touch provisioning helpful which makes it easier for us to develop."
"The deployment is quite simple and straightforward."
"The solution is good to use and easy to handle and manage from the centralized location or from the cloud."
"The initial setup is straightforward and easy to deploy."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"If I have to give a neutral view of all the SD-WAN platforms that I have known so far, Cisco is good in routing."
"With other routing protocols, we have had to send team members to perform installations and configurations. There is a lot of work involved. However with SD-WAN, once it is installed it is fully automated, and we can do all other tasks remotely. We don't have to send staff out to the client's location. It's very independent, and we can establish SD-WAN connectivity easily. It is secure as well."
"Forcepoint is a good, stable solution."
"The central security management center and the content management center are very good."
"I have two offices, and I can route the internet of both offices using the same product. The connectivity is great."
"I like the Firewall and the IPS."
"The simplicity of the solution is its most valuable asset. It's very user-friendly."
"The feature that we like the most about Forcepoint is that we know the technology and have confidence in it. We can have several functionalities to simplify operations and management. We can combine functionalities like log ownership to review the number of devices in the infrastructure."
"I like the IPS. IPS is the master feature. I depend on the firewall and sandbox."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"Cisco SD-WAN's clustering mechanism needs to be improved. If there are more than five milliseconds of latency time between installations of the VM manager, the cluster automatically breaks down."
"All of the configurations are based on templates, and we need to spend a lot of time doing the templates. It's good because that means that all of the configurations will be equal in the network. However, we need to spend a lot of time implementing the templates and doing the customizations."
"The price could be better. From a technical side, and everything's working smoothly. Cisco SD-WAN could be cheaper."
"The solution should not be so bound to ISPs."
"The deployment is complex."
"The technical support is a bit slow."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The bandwidth limitations would be good to remove, but it is a policy and license situation for Cisco because the cost is very high. It would be good to have OTP implemented with VRF. It can have support for EIGRP Over the Top (OTP) VRF. I saw some limitations in regards to the VRF protocol and the advertisement between VRF configuration. EIGRP Over the Top basically was quite limited with the VRF configuration. If you wanted to do rollback in VRF by using the EIGRP OTP protocol, the formation was not populated across. Cisco got back and confirmed that it is a configuration that I need to wait for until the next release, which is going to happen in one year. Cisco documentation is not the way it used to be before. It just gives an easy way to configure, but it doesn't go into the details of the configuration. The information that you need is there, but sometimes you want to go further and get more information, but the information is quite limited. It would be good to cover a few business cases or configuration cases. They used to be there in the past."
"They need to increase the local support here. There are also some bugs or fixes on which they need to work. They very well know about these bugs. In terms of licensing, I would like them to either increase the number of features in a single license or make licensing more flexible."
"The company should update the URL filtering database. They need to enhance the URL filtering and make it easier to customize."
"Configuration is not easy because it has an old-fashioned interface. The configuration interface is highly complex, and it's been the same for years. They have to change the interface."
"They need to improve their alerts."
"The ability to dynamically change policies could be improved."
"Next Generation Firewall's configuration could be improved."
"Its management center should be easier to use. The management interface of Forcepoint is unique and a little bit different from some of the firewall solutions on which people might have worked before. Sometimes, the customers say that it is not very friendly, and we help them with how to use this management interface. It just takes a little bit of time, and after some time, it gets easy to manage or use. It is quite similar to Palo Alto, Fortinet, and legacy Juniper solutions. Their support should be faster. We have received complaints that they are not responding fast, which is not good for the vendor and us."
"The solution needs to build upon its network functionality. It needs to be a bit smarter."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 1st in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 86 reviews while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 10th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 40 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "A solution for integrating services to enhance up-time, performance and lower costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Good URL filtering with helpful technical support and good scalability". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, VMware SD-WAN, Juniper Session Smart Router and Cato SASE Cloud Platform, whereas Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW, Cisco Secure Firewall and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions 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.
