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
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
UniFi WiFi Access Points
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Ubiquiti Networks in San Jose provides the UniFi wi-fi access points. The enterprise products support 1,000+ client capacity, long-range 6 GHz performance, and 10 GbE PoE connectivity with native high availability architecture for critical enterprise environments.
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 …
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 has been in the networking industry for what seems like an eternity. That being said they take what they do and the products they make very seriously. Cisco products are created with the customer in mind, and they are made to be somewhat easy to configure, to the point …
Overall, pfSense is the most complete solution in terms of features included even though it currently lack of a centralised management interface.The Ubiquiti firewall offering is often appealing being well integrated within the Ubiquiti dashboard and it is often a solution of …
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 …
pfSense itself is free and can be installed on just about any hardware so from a hardware cost perspective it can beat out anybody. In terms of features it's above many pro-sumer/small business solutions like Ubiquiti. It can't really stand against high-end gear like Cisco but …
While you can get the performance out of other products, pfSense offers the unique ability to put other services on the same device. Products such as Untagle's NG Firewall and SonicWall's TZ series offer cost effective options for firewall and VPN services, having incoming load …
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.
We've had all kinds of access points and switches in our organization over the years. Between Apple AirPort, NetGear, LinkSys, and Dell, the UniFi access points have been the best ones. The UniFi switches have been good except for some minor mishaps with firmware bugs. We …
Cisco Meraki's solutions closely provide the benefits Ubiquiti provides with a more consumer-level financial accessibility. Ubiquiti has been exponentially increasing its attention and being implemented by home users means gaining a huge market within users that are attentive …
One way of looking at network equipment is by grouping all into two categories: Standalone, and Centrally Managed. Most home or SOHO network equipment is standalone, meaning each device is configured individually. If you need to adjust settings off-site, you need to allow it …
As far as meshed wireless networks and point to point antenna's go, Ubiquiti is the best in my opinion. Where else can you purchase a fully meshed wireless network with a single management interface starting at $89? A typical Aruba Networks Access point starts at $500 for just …
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.
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.
I love the equipment for small-scale commercial solutions and quality without the price tag. I might not recommend their products for a large organization with multiple locations and servers. However, the GUI interface will allow remote access and setup across the network. I think this is a great solution for small businesses and families or home office solutions, provided there is some IT knowledge for setup and maintenance.
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.
Initial configuration of access points can be rather tricky. Each one I have installed was a complete pain to get setup and connected with the UniFi Controller software. I never worked out what causes me problems, but thankfully once I've stumbled through the correct procedure, it does work completely reliably after that, for years on end.
The UniFi Controller software will nag you to share usage data. When offered to opt-in, I choose not to do so, but you'll eventually be nagged again on a future login.
Some of the 'tooltips' within the Controller software could be more informative.
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
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.
Ubiquiti makes great Access points at various tiers provided far better coverage and throughput than consumer-grade wireless repeaters and routers. We have not had any performance complaints from guests or from the administration who use the wifi on a daily basis.
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.
Ubiquiti support is minimal, which is said to help decrease the cost of the equipment. However, with many reports of emails going directly to the Ubiquiti support line taking days to hear a response, you're better off either engaging with the community forums for help from fellow UniFi users or reaching out to a reseller that has training on the equipment that can assist.
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.
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.
Ubiquiti is overall easier to work with. There is no special training needed to accomplish many of the things required with a Cisco product. Since my time is stretched thin, I need something that I can manage without being weighed down by command-line communications. Also, I am able to use my wireless devices to maintain every Ubiquiti device on my network.
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.