No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco Secure Firewall vs Hillstone E-Series comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 5, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure Firewall
Ranking in Firewalls
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
470
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (2nd)
Hillstone E-Series
Ranking in Firewalls
40th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
SSL VPN (10th), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Firewalls category, the mindshare of Cisco Secure Firewall is 7.7%, up from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Hillstone E-Series is 0.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewalls Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Secure Firewall7.7%
Hillstone E-Series0.8%
Other91.5%
Firewalls
 

Featured Reviews

RajeshKumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Consultant at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Unified policies have strengthened zero-trust demos and automate rapid threat containment
Feedback and Improvement Areas – Cisco Secure Firewall (Customer Perspective) From a customer point of view, there are a few improvement areas observed while positioning Cisco Secure Firewall in competitive scenarios. 1. Dashboard & Visibility Enhancements Customers often compare firewall dashboards across different OEMs during evaluation. * Competing vendors typically provide more feature-rich and visually detailed dashboards. * There is a perception that Cisco dashboards still require enhancement in terms of visualization, consolidated reporting, and built-in analytics. * Some OEMs advertise additional security capabilities clearly within their publicly available data sheets, making competitive positioning easier. In comparison, Cisco sometimes references separate documentation or explains how certain capabilities (such as anti-spam or antivirus functionality) can be achieved through integration or ecosystem components rather than native, built-in features. This creates a perception gap during customer discussions. Improvement Opportunity: * Enhance dashboard capabilities. * Clearly articulate feature availability in public documentation and data sheets. * Reduce dependency on cross-referenced documentation for commonly compared features. 2. Virtual Firewall / Multi-Instance Capabilities in Lower Models Another competitive challenge relates to virtual firewall capabilities. * Several OEMs provide virtual firewall (VDOM-like) functionality in lower-end models. * In Cisco’s portfolio, multi-instance capability typically starts from higher-end platforms such as the 3K series or higher. * Customers looking for smaller deployments with logical segmentation are often forced to consider higher models, resulting in a price jump. Competitors also offer: * Compact hardware models * Dongle-based firewall appliances * Smaller entry-level products with virtual segmentation In Cisco’s case: * To achieve similar multi-instance functionality, customers must opt for higher-tier models. * This creates a significant pricing gap in entry-level or SMB deployments. This pricing difference becomes a key factor when customers compare solutions. If competitors offer a lower-cost model with virtual segmentation, and Cisco requires a higher platform investment, customers may lean toward alternative OEMs. 3. Documentation Gaps – OT Protocol Visibility In our lab environment, we have deployed Cisco Secure Firewall and are using Application Visibility and Control (AVC) for OT network monitoring. Observations: * OT protocols are clearly visible within application visibility. * The firewall successfully identifies and classifies OT traffic. However: * This capability is not clearly mentioned in publicly available documentation. * When a feature is available and functional, it should be explicitly documented in data sheets and feature guides. The need for third-party integration depends on what we are looking for. Here I am saying that the integration with Cisco NAC can be done because RTC functionality is only available with Cisco ISE and the firewall integration. For other ecosystems, if we use a NAC solution that is not Cisco, we can still integrate it for user authentication, such as with VPN user authentication. But in that case, we don't achieve the same functionality, such as RTC with other NAC solutions. This is one aspect. Another part is that if we are using it, it always happens with some NAC solutions because we have Cisco NAC and Cisco firewall; we want consistent policy across the network, whether the user is on-prem or using VPN services. If this is a unified OEM solution, in that case, we require an agent, such as the Cisco Secure Client. That allows us to easily check the posture status of the remote user and connect to the network effortlessly. But if we are using a third-party solution, we can't achieve that. From a SIEM perspective, certain prerequisites must be fulfilled before integration with Cisco Secure Firewall can be completed. The feasibility of integration depends on the capabilities of the SIEM platform. If the SIEM solution supports the required APIs and event handling mechanisms, similar functionality can be achieved. Therefore, integration itself is generally not the challenge; the key consideration is the desired security outcome within the overall ecosystem. If the customer does not have a SIEM solution and intends to automate quarantine actions or enforce restricted access for users, a Network Access Control (NAC) solution becomes mandatory. In this scenario, the recommended NAC solution is Cisco Identity Services Engine (Cisco ISE). Automated quarantine and dynamic access control workflows are dependent on NAC capabilities. From a feature enhancement perspective for Cisco Secure Firewall, deeper NAC-driven integration adds significant value. 1. TrustSec / Tag-Based Policy Enforcement Cisco ISE supports Cisco TrustSec, which enables Security Group Tag (SGT)-based segmentation. * In traditional (legacy) networks, firewall policies are created based on IP addresses. * With TrustSec, policies are defined based on user identity, group membership, and security tags instead of IP subnets. * When users authenticate to the network, Cisco ISE assigns Security Group Tags (SGTs). * These tags are shared with Cisco Secure Firewall. * The firewall then enforces policies based on SGT-to-SGT rules rather than IP-to-IP rules. Benefits: * Significant reduction in the number of firewall rules * Simplified policy management * Improved scalability * Easier implementation of role-based access control This integration enhances operational efficiency and security posture. 2. Rapid Threat Containment (RTC) Another key capability is Rapid Threat Containment (RTC). If Cisco Secure Firewall detects malicious activity—such as malware download attempts identified via signature-based or advanced threat detection—it can notify Cisco ISE about the compromised endpoint. Based on this input: * Cisco ISE can automatically quarantine the user * The endpoint can be moved to a restricted VLAN * Access can be dynamically limited without manual intervention This automated workflow ensures faster response time and reduces the risk of lateral movement within the network. 3. VPN and Posture Assessment This functionality is not limited to wired or LAN users. For VPN users: * Authentication can be integrated with third-party NAC solutions. * However, if posture assessment (device compliance checking) is required in addition to authentication, Cisco ISE integration with Cisco Secure Firewall becomes essential. Cisco ISE enables: * Endpoint posture validation * Dynamic policy assignment * Automated remediation workflows
TahirMahmood - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at Zubair Feeds
Offers good features like URL filtering, IPS, and IDS to users
We received an update for the tool in July. The update was provided for the tool as there was a problem with the firewall, where too much memory was consumed, and the firewall was hanging a lot. When we updated the tool's features, everything became okay. The tool only had some memory-related problems. It took the tool a month to fix the issues.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It helps protect my servers from hackers."
"The most valuable feature is IPS. It's a feature that's very interesting for tackling the most current attacks."
"The most valuable feature that Cisco Firepower NGFW provides for us is the Intrusion policy."
"What I appreciate the most about Cisco Secure Firewall is that it can be very elastic, as it can be configured with all the flexibility of my network needs and complexity."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature for the customers is that they can control what communication is allowed and what is not allowed. That is, they can allow or deny client traffic."
"Customer Service: Excellent Technical Support: Excellent"
"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 most valuable features of the Hillstone E-Series are its hardware capacity, innovation, and the throughput that the hardware can take."
"I am impressed with the application filtering feature."
"Five out of five ROI."
"This solution has two main features that we find very valuable; a threat-intelligence option, and a web/application filtering option. The technical support team are very good and very quick."
"With Hillstone, TCO and ROI are very good, it's an easy sale."
"If an organization is not looking for a web proxy, it's a very, very good product."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It only took a few hours to deploy."
 

Cons

"Cisco ASA is starting to get old and Firepower is taking over. All the good things happening are with Firepower."
"The former ASA was a pain in the ass because when someone is used to the Cisco way, the ASA was a strange thing."
"I work for a school, so getting licensing and getting the budget for Cisco Secure Firewall for certain products is a challenge. It's good to have them, however, it costs us a lot."
"It would be good if Cisco made sure that the solution supports all routing protocols. Sometimes it doesn't."
"The product is expensive. A 5580 series costs more than $50000."
"Cisco Secure Firewall could improve in areas like user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness, as it is very costly and difficult to manage. I would rate it seven out of ten, but I would recommend other firewalls due to its high cost and complexity."
"There are some limitations with SSL. Regarding the security assessment for the ISO 27000 standard, there are certain features that Cisco needs to scale up. Not all products support it, so you need to be slightly careful, especially on the site track."
"While this applies to all vendors, pricing can be always lower. In my opinion, Cisco is the most expensive. The pricing can be reduced."
"Having frequent live webinars on a monthly basis would really help."
"The tool needs to improve its price."
"Support from Hillstone E-Series has a shortcoming that needs improvement."
"The tool only had some memory-related problems."
"SSL VPN license cost is not cheap."
"The solution doesn't have a web proxy built into the system like Sophos. This is something they should work to change."
"The current usage reporting is very basic. I would like to be able to access more granular data."
"I am not sure if this solution offers active directory integration. Adding that feature will definitely be an advantage."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing depends on partnerships and certifications."
"Pricing for Cisco is expensive. There are additional costs for the licensing part, support, and even the hardware part. The device cost is very high. I would be very happy with an improvement on the price."
"Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions."
"The program is very expensive."
"Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions."
"It was initially heavy on my pocket, but it soon actualised its worth."
"If we compare it with FortiGate and the co-existing ASA, FortiGate is better in price."
"The Firepower series of appliances is not cheap. I just got a quote recently for six firewalls that was in the range of over half-a-million dollars. That's what could push us to look to other vendors..."
"The cost per year for licensing, and hardware, is approximately $850 for the basic plan."
"The tool's pricing is reasonable. It depends on the model. The product's pricing is around 600 USD. You need to buy a software license to activate the features. You need to pay around 150 USD for that."
"The licensing model is very complex with many subcategories of licenses you can purchase. They could make it more simplified for customers to understand."
"Hillstone's pricing is economical and neither very high nor very low."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user206346 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Consultant at Webernetz.net - Network Security Consulting
Mar 11, 2015
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto Networks
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto: Management Goodies You often have comparisons of both firewalls concerning security components. Of course, a firewall must block attacks, scan for viruses, build VPNs, etc. However, in this post I am discussing the advantages and disadvantages from both vendors concerning…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
18%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business195
Midsize Enterprise130
Large Enterprise239
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise1
 

Questions from the Community

Which is the better NGFW: Fortinet Fortigate or Cisco Firepower?
When you compare these firewalls you can identify them with different features, advantages, practices and usage at large. In my opinion, Fortinet would be the best option and l use Fortinet too...
Which is better - Fortinet FortiGate or Cisco ASA Firewall?
One of our favorite things about Fortinet Fortigate is that you can deploy on the cloud or on premises. Fortinet Fortigate is very stable, reliable, and consistent. We like that we can manage the e...
How does Cisco's ASA firewall compare with the Firepower NGFW?
It is easy to integrate Cisco ASA with other Cisco products and also other NAC solutions. When you understand the Cisco ecosystem, it is very simple to handle. This solution has traffic inspection ...
What needs improvement with Hillstone E-Series?
We received an update for the tool in July. The update was provided for the tool as there was a problem with the firewall, where too much memory was consumed, and the firewall was hanging a lot. Wh...
What is your primary use case for Hillstone E-Series?
I use the solution in my company for site-to-site VPN, SSL VPNs, URL filtering, IPS, IDS and all the other features which are available in the firewall.
What advice do you have for others considering Hillstone E-Series?
Our company did not use the tool's micro-segmentation features. There were no issues while integrating the tool. I have not used any AI in the tool. I recommend the tool to others. I rate the tool ...
 

Also Known As

Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Firewall, Cisco ASA NGFW, Adaptive Security Appliance, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls, Cisco ASAv, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall, Cisco Secure Firewall ASA Virtual - BYOL
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

There are more than one million Adaptive Security Appliances deployed globally. Top customers include First American Financial Corp., Genzyme, Frankfurt Airport, Hansgrohe SE, Rio Olympics, The French Laundry, Rackspace, and City of Tomorrow.
Bank of China Macao, Instituto Tecnológico Bolivariano, Ministry of Labor in San Salvador, FEDCO
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Firewall vs. Hillstone E-Series and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.