Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We are using the solution for airports.

The Cisco NGFW is an excellent fit for purpose for our network security.

I have been using the solution for five years.

We have not had to deal with stability issues.

The support of the solution is great, their staff is perfect.

My team tells me that other solutions such as Fortinet and Palo Alto are easier to implement.

People have said that Palo Alto is a less expensive solution than Cisco, but in my experience, at least from today, Cisco is cheaper than Palo Alto. 

I do not hear anything bad about the competition. I am difficult to change my ways and learn a new product. Unless somebody comes and makes a SWOT analysis and shows me the evidence of how the alternative is better, I am fine with Cisco.

I would recommend this solution to others. 

I rate Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall an eight out of ten.

We primarily provide implementation and maintenance services to our clients.

The software itself is very simple.

The solution is easy to operate. It's not overly complex.

The command line is the same as it is on the Cisco iOS router.

The technical support is very helpful and responsive.

The solution needs to have better logging features.

Cisco needs to migrate its ASA Firewall to a management console or to a web console.

I've been working with the solution for six years at this point.

The solution is largely stable. Once we adopted Cisco services, we found that everything was pretty reliable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good.

The scalability is a problem as the solution has a low throughput.

We've been in touch with technical support and I've always found them easy to reach. They're responsive and helpful. I find their service much better than, for example, Fortinet or Palo Alto. Overall, we're satisfied with Cisco with respect to their technical support.

We have some experience working with Palo Alto and Fortinet solutions as well.

While I don't have the exact pricing of the solution, it's my understanding that Cisco is rather costly. It's not the cheapest option on the market. It's expensive. It's more costly, for example than Palo Alto.

We have a gold partnership status with Cisco, however, we are also partners with companies such as Fortinet and Palo Alto.

For a next-generation firewall, I would likely recommend Palo Alto. However, if a company had the budget, I would recommend Fortinet. That said, for a VPN gateway, I would recommend Cisco ASA.

In general, I would rate Cisco's ASA Firewall at seven out of ten.

We use Cisco ASA for traffic control.

It's a flexible solution.

The configuration is an area that needs improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see the UI include or provide web access, and more integration.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewall for five years.

We are not using the latest version, as it is not available.

It's a stable solution and we have not had any issues.

It's a scalable product. We have approximately 2,000 users in our organization.

We have plans to continue to use it.

Technical support provides us with good service.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy for us because we have experience.

It was already deployed when I arrived.

We have two or three guys for deployment and maintenance.

This is a product that I would recommend to others.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a nine out of ten.

The feature I have found most valuable is the IPS advanced threat detection for removing ransomware and malware.

An area of improvement for this solution is the console visualization.

I have been using this solution for two months.

The solution is stable.

The customer service/technical support is very good with this solution.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took two weeks to deploy. Currently, 5000 employees use this solution in our company.

The solution was chosen because of its price compared to other similar solutions.

I would recommend this solution to other users.

This is a product that is used at the infrastructure level to protect the network from outside traffic.

The most valuable feature is stability.

When using this product, our network is slower. The performance should be improved.

The installation could be made easier.

We have been working with Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for more than two years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue using it.

Support from Cisco is good enough.

The installation can be easy, although it is slightly more difficult to install than Fortinet FortiGate. One day is enough for deployment but it takes a long time to configure.

I deployed Firepower with support from the team in India.

We have a team of three people for deployment and maintenance.

The price of Firepower is not bad compared to other products.

This is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco ASA Firewall to protect different sites at a protocol level. We also use it for antivirus and bot protection.

I think Cisco ASA Firewall is the most stable firewall solution.

The price can be better.

I've been using Cisco ASA Firewall for the last ten years.

I think they're all are stable. I've never seen a firewall that's unstable.

I'm satisfied with their technical support.

It's easy for me to configure one because I have firewall configuration certifications. I don't know what someone with nothing in terms of experience would be able to do. 

It normally takes me a week to implement and deploy. I normally need a week and three people to do maintenance.

I used to implement it several years ago, but now I ask our engineer to do it.

Cisco ASA Firewall should be cheaper.

I would recommend Cisco ASA Firewall to potential users. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco ASA Firewall an eight.

We use the solution to monitor the connections as part of our parameter protection for our network. We restrict what kind of traffic comes in and out, we use it basically for traffic management.

Cisco used to be all command-line operations and now Firepower is in a way modelled from FortiGate. Firepower has integrated a UI into it now.

You do not have to do everything through a command line which makes it a lot easier to apply rules.

You are able to see the traffic of what sites users are visiting.

There are warnings if you are about to go to sites that could be malicious.

It also allows you to block within categories, such as, by URL.

The solution always had these capabilities, but it did not have a user interface that was user-friendly.

The solution could offer better control that would allow the ability to restrictions certain features from a website. For example, If we want to allow YouTube but not allow uploads or we want to allow Facebook but not allow the chat or to playing of videos. This ability to customize restrictions would be great.

We have been using the solution for three months now. We have always used Cisco but before we were using the ASA and now we use the new version with the threat defence.

The stability is good so far.  My opinion could change in another couple of months once we get more deeply involved with the solution.

We currently are protection approximately 220 users.

We just deployed it a couple of months ago, we have not used the tech support with the Firepower yet. We have not had an issue that we have had to raise with them. 

Generally, the tech support for Cisco takes too long to go through the different tiers of support agents to get to someone that can resolve the issue. You end up speaking to someone that is not qualified to solve the issue, then you have to be escalated upwards over and over. This system could be better.

I rate the tech support service generally from Cisco a seven out of ten.

The installation is not hard and not easy either, it falls in between.

The time of implementation took us two to three days. This was in part because we were migrating from another Cisco firewall. The config files were already there, we just had to bring them over. While having the config files we just had to set up the hardware to have us up and running. The install could have taken longer if this was not the case.

Currently, I would give this solution high marks because I have not had a problem. However, keeping in mind, my evaluation period has been short. I would not give the solution a ten, nothing is perfect.

I rate Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall a nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and the Cisco ASA Firewall is one of the security products that we implement for our customers. My clients use it for security, and also to establish VPN connections.

My client is in the financial sector and all of the connections are doing using the VPN. This type of access makes the connections more secure.

The most important feature is the VPN connection.

My clients also use the antimalware features and the scan is very good. It also supports packet inspection and IPS.

Cisco ASA is easy to configure.

The integration with the security features is something that I like.

The SecureX ASA administration platform should be improved.

The orchestration of modules should be improved.

I would like to see the inclusion of a protocol that can be used to protect databases. This would be a good feature to have added.

We have been working with the Cisco ASA Firewall for approximately three years.

I have not had problems with stability, although I have had some small issues with bugs. In general, I can operate without a problem. 

It is very easy to scale this product. With SMC, you can control all levels of ASA in a central console. You can simply add a new ASA firewall to protect your network, and you will be able to control it.

We have approximately 300 users.

My clients for this solution are medium-sized organizations.

I have not been in contact with technical support but I use the implementation guide. I have also used the community support and I think that it's okay. The information that I received about the configuration was good.

Prior to Cisco ASA, my client was using Fortinet FortiGate. They switched because there were complaints about the connection being slow.

The complexity of the setup depends on the needs and requirements of the client.

When a client does not know exactly what is needed, the complexity increases because the configuration is not clear. You really have to have a good understanding of what the client needs before configuring it.

If the model does not have SMC then it is complex to configure.

The length of time for deployment also depends on the requirements, but it will usually take between three days and one week.

This is an expensive product, although when you buy this solution, you can do many things so it provides good value for the investment.

My clients did evaluate other options but ultimately chose this product. Other than the VPN connection, I don't know the reasons for this decision.

I can recommend this product because it is one of the most stable firewalls on the market. The suitability, however, depends on the environment and what is needed.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.