Cisco 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers (ASR 1000) vs Forcepoint NGFW

• In most cases, the larger ASR routers such as the 1006 and 1009s have sufficient capabilities to be used as a Core network router.
• The smaller ASRs such as the 1002 devices are best suited on the edge, capable of handling a limited number of connections due to the fixed chassis.

Read full review

• Easy to manage and make changes on - ACL's are done with ease.
• Easy USB initial configuration - The easy initial setup of a new location and firewall saves massive time. Settings are automatically pushed to new nodes upon contact with the controller.
• Low Complexity - This system does not have a lot of complexity requiring extra hours, training, or personnel to manage.

Read full review

• Licensing on the routers is more complicated than it needs to be. We have the ASR routers along with ISR routers both have the license of the advanced service, however, on the ISR routers that license did not include the app-X feature needed to send the application specific net-flow data we wanted. It would be better if Cisco was consistence with the features included with licenses.
• Some software patches are quite involved as there is a boot loaded and IOS that must be upgraded.

Read full review

• Poor Reporting - It exists but even when calling in to support for assistance, they have no idea how to tackle customizing reports or searching for specific data.

Read full review

• It is a healthy return on investment with planned packed size data. Average unicast latency is low and consistent with small and large packets (barring mid-sized).
• Cisco devices last longer and also have a decent trade-in policy to recover some value when equipment is replaced.
• Higher concurrent IPSec tunnels are offered, we tested for 1500+, fielding both encrypted and a mix of encrypted and cleartext traffic.

Read full review

• Efficiency/Productivity increase. The company moved from Cisco firewall and routing hardware to Forcepoint NGFW. It now takes fewer people and fewer hours to manage the new product. This has allowed the company to put the man-hours to use on other projects and tasks.
• Long term viability. This has been a concern in the past when the company started as Stonegate, merged to become Stonesoft then got purchased by McAfee, then McAfee got purchased by Intel. However, with Forcepoint the product seems to have found a stable home.
• Low complexity. The Web GUI based system for management has reduced the cost of personnel and training required. There is no longer a need for the company to have higher trained and higher salary cost employees to manage the system. Mid-level admins at lower salaries are capable of managing the GUI based system with ease.

Read full review