We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center and Palo Alto Networks Panorama based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Scalability is not an issue as long as you are able to buy additional licenses. Ten percent of our customers use Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center, and we have large accounts with 50% of their end users behind this firewall."
"The most valuable aspects are the antivirus and URL filtering."
"The solution is useful and powerful."
"The platform has significantly enhanced our organization's operations by providing secure communication channels between different office locations."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is the UTM."
"The solution is quite scalable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the intrusion prevention system."
"The most valuable item is centralization and we can get all of the router bases in a single window."
"The ability to manage a large number of firewalls from a single point is most valuable."
"The product can scale."
"The management and the deployment features are most valuable. We can easily deploy and manage the devices. We can do fast deployments without moving from our office and by just providing a short description to the end-user about how to install the physical device."
"Overall, the functionality was very good."
"What's most valuable in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is that it allows us to see the status on the network side, particularly on the endpoint, because we also use it for the internal network."
"The solution is very stable. It's reliable. We don't experience bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. It works as expected."
"It has made our ROIs easier, but consolidating the correlation of data into one single point, which is pretty great."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"Some duplicated values and security standards are not working in some high-application protocols with Cisco's next-generation firewalls."
"The IOS and the deploy option could be improved."
"The performance of the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center could be improved."
"Due to the lack of enough tutorials available online, I face problems with Cisco."
"Areas for improvement include pricing points and the range of products available at any given time."
"Cisco firewalls use old ESR or a Linux system, and there are problems with encryption. When we switch on encryption, the throughput goes down."
"Improving the product by incorporating SD-WAN functionality would be highly beneficial, especially for remote offices with limited server and Internet availability."
"There were a few bugs a couple of years into it. There was a big bug where it had trouble communicating with the two main boxes."
"We found a vulnerability where when we have a low flow, like 2.7K, it is not getting fired by the threat prevention. That's something important to improve on. They should have a proxy or some solution to solve the issue. We also found some issues around decrypting the flow. When we have more flow than expected to decrypt, the performance goes down."
"Panorama needs to work on its configuration issues."
"The implementation is not that easy."
"The central firewall management could be better."
"A bottleneck in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is the licensing. The licensing model for the product is complicated. Another area for improvement is the PDF report generation because you'll notice that it's missing some details."
"The product does need a bit of configuration. It's not quite ready to go out of the box."
"The customer support needs to be better."
More Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is ranked 7th in Firewall Security Management with 19 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 81 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center writes "A stable and reasonably priced product that protects organizations from malware". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Built-in proxy with the ability to maintain your own policies". Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, whereas Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud, Tufin Orchestration Suite and FortiGate Cloud-Native Firewall (FortiGate CNF). See our Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.
