We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."A strong point of FortiGate is the graphical interface is complete and easy to use."
"We were looking for the VPN feature and controlling the inflow and outflow of all the traffic within the site and across the sites. We are also using it for the VPN and VLANs."
"It increases security posture and is helpful for firewall reporting, intrusion protection, web filtering, and SD-WAN implementation."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"It's great for capturing the traffic and troubleshooting it."
"Unified Threat Management (UTM) features."
"SSL-VPN is very useful for us and has been very reliable."
"It is useful for protecting and segregating the internal networks from the internet. Most of our customers also use the FortiGate client to connect to their offices by using the VPN client, and of course, they usually activate the antivirus, deep inspection, and intrusion prevention services. They are also using it for web filtering and implementing various policies dealing with forwardings, NAT, etc."
"The primary benefits of using Cisco Secure solutions are time-saving, a robust API, and convenience for the security team."
"Cisco's engineer helped us with a lot of scripting to see what existed. Previously, we didn't have a proper policy. In fact, we didn't have any policy because we didn't have any firewall for the data center, so generating a policy was a big challenge. Cisco's engineer helped us to do some scripting and find out what kind of policy we can have and organize those policies. That was nice."
"A good intrusion prevention system and filtering."
"The most valuable feature is IPS. It's a feature that's very interesting for tackling the most current attacks."
"An efficient, easy to deploy and dependable firewall solution."
"The configuration support is very good. You can find a lot of configuration samples and troubleshooting tips on the internet, which is very good."
"Cisco ASA has an okay CLI with a nice GUI."
"On the network side, where you create your rules for allowing traffic — what can come inside and what can go out — that works perfectly, if you know what you want to achieve. It protects you."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support."
"We like the scalability of Forcepoint because with the Forcepoint NGFW solution, we can scale anything. The solution has central management, so we can manage all the branches and devices centrally in one controller."
"Forcepoint's stability is satisfactory, for the most part."
"When comparing this solution to others this one has better reporting, user management, and is easy to use."
"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."
"It is stable and scalable. In addition, their support is great. When you ask them for something, they provide support, and if required, they also involve the R&D team to help you to resolve the issues in your configuration."
"I found the initial setup process to be very simple and straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is controlling the traffic and the logging. They have real-time logins for traffic logs. Troubleshooting was very easy for me."
"They've become quite expensive."
"The solution could be more user friendly."
"It should have a better pricing plan. It is too expensive. It should also have a more granular view of the attack. I don't have FortiAnalyzer, and it is difficult for me to have a complete view when there is an attack on my server."
"The room for improvement is about the global delivery time period. Usually I need to wait for almost one month to deliver it overseas. So if you can shorten the deliver time it'd be great."
"The logging details need to be improved."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve the user interface. There should be more functionality and options through the GUI."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve the protection, it did not prevent us from being attacked. Additionally, Fortinet FortiGate could provide more features for WAF devices. I should not have to purchase two solutions, it would be a benefit to combine these features into one solution."
"Some of the web policy reports could be improved."
"The phishing emails could be improved."
"Its user interface is good, but it could be better. Currently, you have to know what to do before you can manage a device. If you don't know what to do, you can mess things up. There are some devices that are easier, such as FortiGate. The user interface of FortiGate is more intuitive. It is very easy to log in and configure things."
"It's not unexpected, but it's a common scenario where customers request dual layers of security. For instance, when dealing with regulatory compliance, especially in financial sectors regulated by entities like the Central Bank, having two distinct units is often mandated. If a client predominantly uses a solution like Palo Alto, they may need to incorporate another vendor such as Cisco or Forti. Importantly, there's a significant disparity in interfaces and management platforms between these vendors, necessitating careful consideration when integrating them into the overall security architecture"
"Technical support takes a long time to respond."
"I have worked with the new FTD models and they have more features than the ASA line."
"I was just trying to learn how this product actually operates and one thing that I see from internal processing is it does fire-walling and then sends it to the IPS model and any other model that needs to be performed. For example, content checking or filtering will be done in a field processing manner. That is something that causes delays in the network, from a security perspective. That is something that can be improved upon. Palo Alto already has implemented this as a pilot passed processing. So they put the same stream of data across multiple modules at the same time and see if it is giving a positive result by using an XR function. So, something similar can be done in the Cisco Firepower. Instead of single processing or in a sequential manner, they can do something similar to pile processing. Internal function that is something that they can improve upon."
"Most of the time, when I try to run Java, it is not compatible with ASA's current operating systems."
"These firewalls are not for beginners."
"The solution needs to build upon its network functionality. It needs to be a bit smarter."
"The solution needs to add an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile, not just policies and VPN."
"You do need knowledge of the solution in order to set the product up properly."
"They should have a GUI on the product itself, not a separate management tool to be used on the management server or on a server to be used to manage the file. It should be all in one device. The device should be controlled through its own GUI. They also have to improve the learning center and the documents as the documents don't really help."
"Something that I've noticed that Forcepoint lacks, is the training that they offer to their end-customers"
"They need to work on stability, it has not been the best in our experience."
"The endpoint protection capabilities of the product are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"They should have a local vendor who can provide support. Most of the support is overseas, so the time zones can be a problem."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 25th in Firewalls with 40 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6. 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 Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Provides decent protection for the LAN but complicated interface". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW, Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense and Darktrace. See our Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall 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.
