We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall vs. pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Cisco Secure Firewall and pfSense come out about equal in this comparison. Cisco ASA Firewall has a slight edge when it comes to service and support, but pfSense has an edge when it comes to pricing.
"The scalability of Fortinet FortiGate is good."
"It can expand easily."
"It is easy to use and performs very well."
"The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very user friendly. We are utilizing most of the features, like content filtering. The firewall is powerful."
"The pipe filter application is an outstanding feature."
"The VPN is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of FortiGate is FortiView which provides proactive monitoring."
"Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"Previously, our customers had to always utilize hand-to-hand delivery. Now, they are able to move completely to a secure digital method. They use a strictly dark fiber optics connection from a central location to the endpoint."
"ASA integrates with FirePOWER, IPS functionality, malware filtering, etc. This functionality wasn't there in the past. With its cloud architecture, Cisco can filter traffic at the engine layer. Evasive encryptions can be entered into the application, like BitTorrent or Skype. This wasn't possible to control through a traditional firewall."
"The TAC is always very helpful. We pay for Tier 1 support, so we get whatever we need from them. They always give us a solution. If they can't give us an answer that day, they get back to us within at least 24 hours with a solution or fix. I have never had a problem with the TAC. I would rate them as 10 out of 10."
"Everything is all documented in the file or in the command line script that gets uploaded to the device. It gives us great visibility."
"The most valuable feature is IPS. It's a feature that's very interesting for tackling the most current attacks."
"Its ability to discover attacks is a valuable feature. All of the other features that have to do with security are good."
"Malicious URLs are being blocked."
"The ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager) which is the graphical user interface, works out, and Cisco keeps it current."
"The redundancy and scalability ARE very nice."
"For everyday tasks, we just get alerts. It's anything that's suspicious, including from our Netgate. So, it's part of how we maintain cybersecurity in our school. This is working alongside our endpoint security solution."
"The solution has good customization abilities and plenty of features."
"We've found the stability to be very good overall."
"I'm the expert when it comes to Linux systems, however, with the pfSense, due to the web interface, the rest of the staff can actually make changes to it as required without me worrying about whether they've opened up ports incorrectly or not. The ease of use for non-expert staff is very good."
"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 had some outages in the network and we provide services for our company. We sell mobile credits. The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up and we have a back-up link on the devices."
"It is a stable solution."
"The performance could be a bit better. Right now, I find it to be lacking. Having good performance is very important for our work."
"Difficult to add or define, and not that easy to configure and manage."
"I think they need to improve more in order to be a competitor with the leaders of the field."
"It's my understanding that more of the current generation features could be brought in. There could be more integration with EDRs, for example."
"The solution needs to improve its integration with cybersecurity."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve the integration with Active Directory. Additionally, I would like to have a Cloud Controller, such as they do in the Cisco Meraki solution."
"In the next release, I would like to see the interface simplified to be more user-friendly."
"The license renewal process, annual renewal price, and the web application firewall features should be improved."
"Cisco wasn't first-to-market with NGFWs... they should look at what other vendors are doing and try not only to be on the same wavelength but a little bit better."
"I have used Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point previously and I prefer the process of everything working together."
"A feature that would allow me to load balance among multiple ISPs, especially since we have deployed it as a perimeter firewall, would be a great addition."
"Security must be increased when a new user connects over the LAN and an alarm must be generated."
"You have to know the ASA command line very well because not all operations are available in the graphical interface"
"There are always vulnerabilities that come up and there was one in early 2018 but this was patched with software updates."
"This is an older product and has reached end-of-life."
"It's lacking one feature: VPN. Also, the 2100 Series lacks a DDoS feature. If they could add that to those platforms, that would be good."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection."
"The hotspot and the portal feature in this solution are not stable for WiFi access. We use it at least once or twice every day and it crashes. Some modules can be better by improving detection and having new updates. Additionally, we have some issues with clustering and load balancing that could improve."
"We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs."
"The product must provide integration with other solutions."
"Needs services on additional features, such as managing inventory and generating reports."
"The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability."
"It's just not listed as FIPS compliant for where we're at now in government, which is an issue."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. 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 Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Meraki MX, Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Juniper SRX Series Firewall, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Netgate 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.