Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) software is the core OS for the ASA suite. It provides firewall functionality, as well as integration with context-specific Cisco security modules. It is scaled for enterprise-level traffic and connections.
N/A
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
The VM-Series is a virtualized form of Palo Alto next-generation firewall that can be deployed in a range of cloud environments. The VM-Series natively analyzes all traffic in a single pass to determine the application identity, the content within, and the user identity.
N/A
pfSense
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
pfSense is a firewall and load management product available through the open source pfSense Community Edition, as well as a the licensed edition, pfSense Plus (formerly known as pfSense Enterprise). The solution provides combined firewall, VPN, and router functionality, and can be deployed through the cloud (AWS or Azure), or on-premises with a Netgate appliance. It as scalable capacities, with functionality for SMBs. As a firewall, pfSense offers Stateful packet inspection, concurrent…
$179
per appliance
Pricing
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
pfSense
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
SG-1100
$179
per appliance
SG-2100
$229
per appliance
SG-3100
$399
per appliance
SG-5100
$699
per appliance
XG-7100-DT
$899
per appliance
XG-7100-1U
$999
per appliance
XG-1537
$1,949
per appliance
XG-1541
$2,649
per appliance
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
We evaluated other Cisco security devices and other vendors, but chose the Cisco ASA due to it's price point and compatibility. While Fortinet and Palo Alto are leaders in the field, we found that for the price, the features we needed were fully satisfied by the ASA. We …
Cisco ASAs are a world apart from SonicWall's, and even more so pfSense. Sonicwall's are okay for SOHO purposes; they're not expensive, but they're not as robust either. They often choke bandwidth because of CPU limitations. pfSense is a Linux-based firewall, and it does the …
[Cisco] ASA is far better than pfSense[.] pfSense is a very complicated firewall and if you need any help documentation is not easily available. Cisco ASA configuration via CLI is [the] very best and fast for configuration[.]
I am a freelancer consultant so I use lots of firewalls. I recommended Cisco ASA to my client and asked him to replace pfSense because pfSense is not easy firewall. Options are very different and commands are very tricky. Lots of options are not available. But ASA is better …
pfSense is a nice firewall but it is minimal in features. The main advantage of Cisco ASA is routing, VPN, and NAT, and pfSense is providing these features but they are only basic. Cisco ASA provides lots of options in NAT but pfSense provides basic NAT features, so according …
We were using [pfSense] before in our environment but we regularly facing difficulties over it due to software bugs & downtime. After implementing Cisco ASA, it resolved our availability issue & provides us a reliable solution with the best security features & easy to …
We were using pfSense before in our environment but we were facing continuous issues in configuration management & policy-based management. After the implementation of Cisco ASA, it has resolved both the previous problems & also provided us a reliable solution with High …
We were using pfSense in our environment before for remote VPN but we were facing continuous configuration misbehave issues. After using Cisco ASA is have resolved our remote VPN & security issues. It has also GUI Based control access so that we can easily check & manage things …
We were using pfsence before [the] Cisco ASA firewall and we were not happy with pfSense features. Lots of features are missing in pfSence so we decided to install the [Cisco] ASA 5525 and we are very happy with the features. There are lots of options in nat and you can easy to …
We were using the pfSense but we were not happy with the services. We were facing lots of downtime and bugs during the production hours. That's why we selected Cisco ASA. It is a really very good firewall and we haveb't faced any downtime in the last 3 years.
I don't thin[k] any basic firewall in this budget is better then Cisco ASA. ASA provides you lots of option[s] in vpn, nat and this is very easy to configure. This is not complected firewall. Beginner network also can configure this and handle this. No downtime is main …
Our Palo Altos and Cisco ASAs are pretty comparable. They both seem to work well when used in an HA pair. They can both do IP/Port based ACLs. But the Palos also have APP-ID which helps to make sure that the traffic passing through your firewall is the type of traffic …
When comparing Cisco ASA to other vendors' products we needed to bear in mind that most other security vendors offer a next-gen Firewall solution while the ASA is still a legacy firewall. Based on this, Cisco ASA is by no means a loser here. Cisco ASA is an extremely capable …
Above all, the robustness and quality of the components, the support and the rapid resolution of warranty issues. Cisco is a serious company and demonstrates this by making the processes with the client as easy as possible.
Cisco tried to build a new platform by bolting acquired and rebranded SourceFire as a next generation platform but really missed the boat. Cisco should be considered a networking company not security. Firewall technology is changing and Cisco needs to reevaluate their place in …
Cisco made sense from the standpoint that my engineers already knew it and there was little learning curve. Personally, I prefer a purpose-built hardware solution. Untangle is not ready for the enterprise as a whole but works great to do web/application filtering . …
We sell both PAN and Cisco products. We feel a certain bias toward ASA as overall they are easier to deploy, easier to troubleshoot, last years beyond their supported lifetime and have extremely sturdy reliable hardware.
I've used older Cisco PIX and we have a third party that uses Palo Alto firewalls that is more suited for our enterprise but the ASA works seamlessly with our communication manager server.
We selected Cisco ASA because most of the other networking equipment is also Cisco devices. With this we are able to be confident that we will not have any issues with incompatibility. The ability to integrate with other Cisco solutions that we already had in place was also a …
We currently have both products running in our environment. The ASA has a more mature product line and we have had create success with implementing and administering the ASA for the years. Solid product with great features.
The Cisco back end support is what made the difference for us. The ability to configure the device to our specific needs was a plus as well. VPN was easy to set up and we have had few issues with end users connectivity.
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Verified User
Professional
Chose Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
PAN was a much more solid choice, with less infrastructure needs required than Checkpoint. Cost was also a factor, with PAN being cheaper, even without the discounts given by our rep. VPN's are much easier to configure with non-heterogeneous products where the checkpoint …
PFSense is not a fully featured and supported enterprise-grade solution; however, it does offer a lot of similar functionality at a fraction of the cost for more minor requirements.
Verified User
Engineer
Chose pfSense
pfSense is a lot cheaper and has higher firewall throughput per dollar than "enterprise" network appliances. It's also significantly easier to configure and learn. It may not have some of the "enterprise" features or the support level that someone like Cisco has, but for small …
It's an open source solution can support from 50 to 700 user without sweating and with the half of the standard bundle investment that will take to deploy a FortiGate UTM, or a Cisco ASA, also a Sophos UTM that are quite remarkable units but to pFSense saves you money and will …
I've used a number of routers like Cisco, Sonicwall, Juniper, Home based routers, etc. pfSense is like most routers but with the benefit of load balancing and multi-wan. Well many support multi-wan but load balancing is usually a separate device like an BIGiP F5 or Cisco CSS.
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
pfSense
Likelihood to Recommend
Cisco
Cisco ASA's are great for internal network connected access between a firewall and the central management server. And, for complex networks where high security requirements with overly strict compliance are necessary. For networks with limited connectivity to the core or for poor network connectivity these are not the best solution. There are other more stand-alone firewall's that do this better. These firewall's are a little more complex to set up to start with so significant knowledge of these devices is required to set them up and ensure they are best practice installed.
PaloAlto VM-200 is a virtualized firewall with high processing power and network edge protection. The great advantage is being able to implement in a VMware environment without worrying about hardware, rack space, physical network connections and others. It can be easily managed via the web and remotely to create protection, access and reporting rules. The VM-200 firewall can be used by any company, small or large because it has several models available according to the real needs of each one.
I believe PFSense is well suited for both home lab environments as well as up to small to mid-size business environments on a tight budget. However, I would implore that anything in production requires the use of the authorized hardware that PFSense sells to receive support. However, in my experience, PFSense is a solid set-and-forget firewall solution.
Easy to use. Good user interface design! Easy to understand and easy to set up.
Lower hardware requirement. 3 years ago, we used an old PC to run it. Now, we have changed to a router device with Celeron CPU and 8GB RAM. It runs smoothly with a 1000G commercial broadband.
I did kind of mention a Con in the Pro section with OpenVPN.
When I create a config for an employee other employees are able to login to that config.
I could be doing something wrong when I am making it - I am not afraid to admit that as I am pretty new to all of this, but it seems like it builds a key and I would think the key would be unique in some way to each employee, but I could be wrong.
I actually do not have a lot of Con's for this software - I did not get to set this up on our work network so I am not sure of any downfalls when installing.
I installed this on my personal machine in a Hyper-V environment to get a feel for it before I started working on it at work and it seemed pretty smooth. I didn't run into any issues.
To be honest there has been now great products out in the market compared to Cisco ASA. I beleieve Cisco has to do a lot of improvement in this area. The other defeiniete factors is the cost when it comes to renewals which is always a premium on Cisco products
It is very easy to use, even for those with little experience in this particular firewall. Some of the advanced content filtering and content-based policies are difficult to pick up; however, almost all required decoders are built in. Built-in logging and rule testing make rule definition easy, and labels/tags allow filtering, grouping, and categorisation of rules. Updates are easy, and high availability is also reliable.
The pfSense UI is easy to navigate and pretty go look at. It is much better than some high dollar firewalls that just throw menus you you. The pfSense UI is quick and responsive and makes sense 99% of the time. Changes are committed quickly and the hardware rarely requires a reboot. It just runs.
I generally have not noticed the outages, however since it's a machine it can malfunction, we need to implement the firewall infrastructure in such a way that it is highly available with device failure, region failure etc. Else any solution will be having the issues if they are not build with resiliency.
The support is usually very good and gets back to you very quickly. However I had some instances of when two engineers will give me wildly different answers to what I thought was a simple question. Overall however I do rate the support highly and they are generally always very good.
It was quite a good one, how ever requires an expertise to deploy hence the SMB segment would be finding it difficult to implement this product. The one good reason is that there are lot of ASA certified engineers in compared to the other certified engineers. Hence this resembles positively on the deployment as you have quite a lot of experienced engineer on your deployment
We were using [pfSense] before in our environment but we regularly facing difficulties over it due to software bugs & downtime. After implementing Cisco ASA, it resolved our availability issue & provides us a reliable solution with the best security features & easy to understand GUI.
palo alto firewalls are application-oriented systems. They can beat other product which are based on layer 3/4 inspection. Vm series are also quickly available and could be useful in urgent deployment needs . other vendors like Fortinet and cisco could take much more time to provide the VM and in some cases installation and license validation are complicated
Meraki has a unified management login for all devices, which is nice. It also has decent content filtering, both areas where pfSense is weaker. Where pfSense far ouclasses Meraki is in the ease of use and the other width of features. These include features such as better VPN interoperability, non-subscription based pricing, auditability, not relying on the infrastructure of a third party, more transparency of what's actually going on, easier to deploy replacements if hardware fails. Additionally, the NAT management for pfSense seems to be a bit better, as you can NAT between any network segment and not just the LAN segments out the WAN interfaces.
pfSense can be installed on commodity hardware with no licensing fees. With a simple less than 10 minute restore time, on most hardware, it's an extremely inexpensive way to achieve the same results that some of the more expensive vendors provide.
The easy to use interface has allowed configuration management to be preformed by lower level technicians with quick and easy training.