We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"There are no issues that we are aware of. It does its job silently in the background."
"It has a good security level. It is a next-generation firewall. It can protect from different types of attacks. We have enabled IPS and IDS."
"One of the most valuable features of Firepower 7.0 is the "live log" type feature called Unified Event Viewer. That view has been really good in helping me get to data faster, decreasing the amount of time it takes to find information, and allowing me to fix problems faster. I've found that to be incredibly valuable because it's a lot easier to get to some points of data now."
"The implementation is pretty straightforward."
"It is one of the fastest solutions, if not the fastest, in the security technology space. This gives us peace of mind knowing that as soon as a new attack comes online that we will be protected in short order. From that perspective, no one really comes close now to Firepower, which is hugely valuable to us from an upcoming new attack prevention perspective."
"We have not had to deal with stability issues."
"Feature-wise, we mostly use IPS because it is a security requirement to protect against attacks from outside and inside. This is where IPS helps us out a bunch."
"Firepower NGFW has improved my organization in several ways. Before, we were trying to stamp out security threats and issues, it was a one-off type of way to attack it. I spent a lot of manpower trying to track down the individual issues or flare-ups that we would see. With Cisco's Firepower Management, we're able to have that push up to basically one monitor and one UI and be able to track that and stop threats immediately. It also gives us a little more granularity on what those threats might be."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"pfSense is easy to use, has user-friendly dashboards, and useful blocking features."
"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."
"The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary."
"I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable."
"The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten."
"The concurrent users are perfect for us."
"It's a good solution for end-users. It's pretty easy to work with."
"Sangfor has the best capabilities for securing connections, securing web browsers, securing servers, and general threat protection."
"In terms of the most valuable features, the IPS report is quick and updated. Performance is also valuable."
"We've found the technical support to be helpful."
"It's a very simple to use product."
"While the features are not dissimilar to other brands, configuration is much more simple, which works out great for Indonesian people."
"In four steps one can configure the entire firewall."
"The price and SD-WAN capabilities are the areas that need improvement."
"Web filtering needs improvement because sometimes the URL is miscategorized."
"Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall can be more secure."
"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."
"The initial setup was a bit complex. It wasn't a major challenge, but due to our requirements and network, it was not very straightforward but still easy enough."
"The initial setup can be a bit complex for those unfamiliar with the solution."
"FlexConfig is there as a bridge for features that are not yet natively integrated into Firepower. It is a way of allowing you to be able to configure things that wouldn't otherwise be possible until the development team can add them into Firepower's native capability. There is still some work that needs to be done around FlexConfig. There are still quite a few complex things, like policy-based routing, that have to be done in FlexConfig, and it doesn't always work perfectly. Sometimes, there are some glitches. It is recommended that you configure FlexConfig policies with Cisco TAC. It would be good to see Cisco accelerate some of those configurations that you can only do in FlexConfig into the platform, so that they are there natively."
"One issue with Firepower Management Center is deployment time. It takes seven to 10 minutes and that's a long time for deployment. In that amount of time, management or someone else can ask me to change something or to provide permissions, but during that time, doing so is not possible. It's a drawback with Cisco. Other vendors, like Palo Alto or Fortinet do not have this deployment time issue."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"Ease of use is a problem for a user who is unfamiliar with this product because, in the interface, everything has to be set manually."
"There's a bit of a learning curve during the initial implementation."
"pfSense has some limitations in detecting site sessions. We want to control internet usage based on sites and their content, and pfSense doesn't perform this function."
"The access control aspect of the product could be improved."
"There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall."
"They could improve their commercial stance and be more agile when it comes to the commercial pricing of enterprise deals."
"I'd like to find something in pfSense that is more specific to URL filtering. We have customers who would like to filter their web traffic. They would like to be able to say to their employees, "You can surf the web, but you cannot get access to Facebook or other social media," or "You can surf the web, but you're not allowed to gamble or watch porn on the web." My technicians say that doing this kind of stuff with pfSense nowadays is not easy. They can implement some filters using IP addresses but not by using the names of the domains and categories. So, we are not able to exclude some categories from the allowed traffic, such as porn, gambling, etc. To do that, we have to use another product and another web filter that uses DNS. I know that there are some third-party products that could work with pfSense, but I'd like the native pfSense solution to do that."
"The solution has too many bugs and these slow down the implementation."
"They need to increase the number of ports in the firewall."
"Occasional issues with breaches which are dealt with expediently."
"I believe that IAM and NGFW need to merge into a single box, instead of there being two separate box solutions."
"The web interface needs to be improved, making it more user-friendly."
"This product is expensive."
"The price of Firepower is not bad compared to other products."
"I like the Smart Licensing, because it is more dynamic and easier to keep track of where you are at. If we have a high availability firewall pair and they are deployed in active/standby rather than active/active, I would expect that we would only pay for one set of licenses because you are using only one firewall at any one time. The other is there just for resiliency. The licensing, from a Firepower perspective, still requires you to have two licenses, even if the firewalls are in active/standby, which means that you pay for the two licenses, even though you might only be using one firewall any one time. This is probably not the best way to do it and doesn't represent the best value for money. This could be looked at to see if it could be done in a fairer way."
"Its price is in the middle range. Both Firepower and FortiGate are not cheap. Palo Alto and Check Point are the cheapest ones. I don't remember any costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The price is comparable."
"When we are fighting against other competitors for customers, whether it is a small or big business, we feel very comfortable with the price that Firepower has today."
"When we purchased the firewall, we had to take the security license for IPS, malware protection, and VPN. If we are using high availability, we have to take a license for that. We also have to pay for hardware support and technical support. Its licensing is on a yearly basis."
"Cisco pricing is premium. However, they gave us a 50 to 60 percent discount."
"It's open-source and it's free. Anything for free is good."
"I am using the community version of the solution and it is priced well. There is a cost of learning how to use the solution, if it was free it would be better."
"There is an open-source community version that is available."
"There is no license. You don't have to pay anything. It's completely free."
"This solution provides enterprise-level features at a fraction of the cost of an enterprise firewall."
"The pricing is lower than some of its competitors."
"The solution software does not require a license, it is free. The support contract is about $600 dollars."
"The solution is free. However, you need to pay for support."
"When it comes to the price of firewall solutions, Sangfor NGAF takes the cake."
"The price is unmatcheable."
"Sangfor is cheaper than competing vendors."
Cisco NGFW firewalls deliver advanced threat defense capabilities to meet diverse needs, from
small/branch offices to high performance data centers and service providers. Available in a wide
range of models, Cisco NGFW can be deployed as a physical or virtual appliance. Advanced threat
defense capabilities include Next-generation IPS (NGIPS), Security Intelligence (SI), Advanced
Malware Protection (AMP), URL filtering, Application Visibility and Control (AVC), and flexible VPN
features. Inspect encrypted traffic and enjoy automated risk ranking and impact flags to reduce event
volume so you can quickly prioritize threats. Cisco NGFW firewalls are also available with clustering
for increased performance, high availability configurations, and more.
Cisco Firepower NGFWv is the virtualized version of Cisco's Firepower NGFW firewall. Widely
deployed in leading private and public clouds, Cisco NGFWv automatically scales up/down to meet
the needs of dynamic cloud environments and high availability provides resilience. Also, Cisco NGFWv
can deliver micro-segmentation to protect east-west network traffic.
Cisco firewalls provide consistent security policies, enforcement, and protection across all your
environments. Unified management for Cisco ASA and FTD/NGFW physical and virtual firewalls is
delivered by Cisco Defense Orchestrator (CDO), with cloud logging also available. And with Cisco
SecureX included with every Cisco firewall, you gain a cloud-native platform experience that enables
greater simplicity, visibility, and efficiency.
Learn more about Cisco’s firewall solutions, including virtual appliances for public and private cloud.
Sangfor Next Generation Firewall (also known as NGAF) is a converged security solution providing protection against advanced threat, malware, viruses, ransomware and web-based attacks using integrated security features like firewall, IPS, anti-virus, anti-malware, APT, URL filtering, Cloud Sandbox, and WAF. As the world's first AI-enabled and fully integrated Next Generation Firewall & Web Application Firewall (WAF), NGAF offering the security visibility, real-time detection and response, simplified operation and maintenance and high-performance application layer security needed to operate an enterprise network in total security. Tested and proven to provide cutting-edge network security by ICSA Labs and endorsed by Gartner Inc., NGAF harnesses the power of Sangfor’s Neural-X threat intelligence and analytics platform and Engine Zero’s innovative malware detection to provide next-generation protection for today’s enterprise.
pfSense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 53 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 23rd in Firewalls with 6 reviews. pfSense is rated 8.6, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of pfSense writes "Feature-rich, well documented, and there is good support available online". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor NGAF writes "Great pricing, reliable stability, and easy to deploy". pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos UTM, Sophos XG and Juniper SRX, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, Fortinet FortiOS, Sophos UTM and SonicWall NSa. See our Sangfor NGAF vs. 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.