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
Sophos UTM
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Sophos UTM provides core firewall features, plus sandboxing and AI threat detection for advanced network security. It has customizable deployment options.
N/A
WatchGuard Network Security
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
WatchGuard Network Security is a network security and firewall software. WatchGuard includes secure Wi-Fi, multi-factor authentication, and network intelligence products and services designed for SMB’s.
N/A
Pricing
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software
Sophos UTM
WatchGuard Network Security
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Support
Contact sales team
Contact sales team
Basic Security
Contact sales team
Contact sales team
Total Security
Contact sales team
Contact sales team
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software
Sophos UTM
WatchGuard Network Security
Free Trial
No
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
t2.small - $0.123 - Total / hr
m3.medium - $0.417 - Total / hr
m3.large - $0.883 - Total / hr
m3.xlarge - $1.366 - Total / hr
m3.2xlarge- $1.982 - Total / hr
c3.large - $0.555 - Total / hr
c3.xlarge - $1.11 - Total / hr
c3.2xlarge - $1.72 - Total / hr
c3.4xlarge - $2.59 - Total / hr
c3.8xlarge - $3.68 - Total / hr
c4.large - $0.55 - Total / hr
c4.xlarge - $1.099 - Total / hr
c4.2xlarge - $1.698 - Total / hr
c4.4xlarge - $2.546 - Total / hr
c4.8xlarge - $3.841 - Total / hr
m4.large - $0.868 - Total / hr
m4.xlarge - $1.365 - Total / hr
m4.2xlarge- $1.931 - Total / hr
Configuration and management of Cisco's ASA are straightforward. We chose Cisco ASA for many reasons, as well as Cisco's threat response reports. We previously had issues with Sophos UTM due to its poor performance. We no longer have to be concerned about performance issues …
Cisco ASA seems to be more reliable to me. However, Watchguard has multi-wan routing built-in natively to the appliance. Outside of the multi-wan functionality; however, I find the Cisco ASA to be more reliable and dependable. The Cisco ASA is more focused on security, whereas …
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.
These are similar products but the Cisco had a model for each of our sites. Watchguard at the time of selection did not scale in the way that Cisco ASA did.
All firewalls take some learning to get used to the interface, but the Sophos UTM makes more sense than the Cisco ASA or the SonicWall interface. As an experienced engineer who has used dozens of different routers it was easy to figure out how to configure what I needed. Sophos …
Trying to connect a Cisco device to anything other than a Cisco device is extremely complicated. We were able to get it working with Watchguard -> Cisco, and then slowly replaced all of our Cisco ASA Firewalls with WatchGuard. Cheaper, simpler, and it works great!
As I mentionned before, the WSM tool and Dimension is the main reasons we stock with WatchGuard beside being satisfied with deployement results at our clients infrastructures.
Our tech had previous experience with WatchGuard Network Security and the Fortinet devices we were using weren't functioning to the standards we needed them to. As costs have increased with WatchGuard Network Security and across the board, we are looking for a different vendor …
I find the WatchGuard products easier to configure than the similar SonicWall and Cisco products. I would rather spend time securing the rest of my network, than trying to get a network setup with the non-WatchGuard devices. SonicWall is not that complex either, but I trust …
Overall, the WatchGuard offers more capabilities, is faster, is easier to configure, and protects better. No other firewall is proactive and works to block based on unhandled packets, which is normally some sort of port scan or probing.
WatchGuard Network Security offers equal or better security, and is substantially less expensive than these other solutions, especially when looking at a 3 year to 5 year period.
WatchGuard was selected due to product familiarity; their free training courses mean we have all our technicians qualified in their use. Support has always been top-notch. And security is their focus; there's no trying to sell additional HW or add-ons. Although somewhat from …
Amongst others, these are the most common devices we come across and WatchGuard is by far the fullest offering whilst also giving the best experience in managing and setting up. The training level required for some higher enterprise devices is usually much higher so we find …
WatchGuard Network Security has more features than Peplink and Meraki and ultimately makes it a better firewall than them. Sophos is very similar in feature set however WatchGuard's approach to management and visibility sets it apart.
I find that WatchGuard really shines against the competition in three areas. First, out of all the firewall appliances I have used, they are the easiest to set up and get running. Second, they perform just as well or better than comparable appliances, and third, they can't be …
Ease of use and cost of licensing. I feel the protections are similar, even though I like WatchGuard's better. The price made it an easy sell to the other executives. I liked WatchGuard over the others in every category: price, reliability (same in all), ease of use, …
I find Watchguard much easier to deploy and maintain than Sonicwall devices. I find they offer a comparable range of products and features, however, I liked the deployment process of Watchguards much more. The Cisco ASA is a great firewall as well, however, can require more …
For our company, it was the ability to have a partner relationship with WatchGuard for our growing company. We have had a good relationship both with technical support and their sales team. They also make a lot of training available through their partner program.
i3 Business Solutions evaluated both Fortinet and Cisco before choosing WatchGuard as its preferred UTM - Firewall vendor. The WatchGuard Firebox won out based on our selection criteria.
SonicWall is insecure and horrible to manage. Cisco ASA is terrible to manage. 98% of breaches occur due to a misconfiguration. Therefore, any device that makes visibility and management difficult inherently results in misconfigurations and insecure configurations. I don't …
After using ASAs, Sonicwalls, and pfSense; and then also evaluating FortiGates I would have to say that WatchGuard as a nextGen/UTM device with all the services enabled including deep packet inspection is comparatively faster. Also, the ease of use, support, and traffic …
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.
UTM works great if you want a solid, obvious firewall. There's not a lot of second-guessing as to what you are about to do with every change you make. If you incorporate their wireless access points and RED (remote ethernet device) for remote users or small offices, it's considerably much easier to set up than other comparable solutions. If you are looking to manage your firewalls via the cloud, you are out of luck.
WatchGuard Network Security is a true next generation firewall vendor, and they are constantly improving their products. The account management is engaged, and support is responsive and knowledgeable. We've had consistent quality experiences with deployment and warranty response. The feature set is robust and effective when properly configured. Any questions or concerns with configuration have always been handled efficiently and effectively. They've been a great vendor to partner with.
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
I'm giving this note to WatchGuard Network Security due to its ease of daily support (after acquiring necessary knowledge in the solution), which allows agility in configuration changes, its integration of several reliable security features (such as SSL VPN, VPN Virtual Interfaces between companies, and others) and functional and stability in operation, with no downtime in the equipment due to problems or malfunctions
The interface is no non-sense and easy to understand. No need for any consultants to help implement this solution. The performance is consistent and solid. Paired with a good amount of firmware and definitions, it's hard to find any fault in this product. It's interoperability with other Sophos products make a compelling argument to invest in more Sophos products.
Although it might take some time to figure out, we have been able to use WatchGuard's online reference library and tech support to create/implement/modify all of our filtering rules and exceptions needed. There really has not been a shortcoming other than perhaps a learning curve.
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.
Availability has always been a strong point of this product, it is rare that watchguard does not have a solution for customers' network monitoring needs.
The performance of WatchGuard Network Security is very good, in the years that we have used the solution we have only had a single error and Watchguard itself was able to solve it. Furthermore, when purchasing any product, the partner always evaluates the capacity of the solution to recommend the most appropriate product for our needs.
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.
I find the support fair. The wait can be frustrating when dealing with fire. The pandemic has not helped with this. Although the wait can be long, the support reps are knowledgeable and was able to resolve the issues I was facing.
We have only had to contact them once during the initial set up to help bring the internet back on line. After that for the most part our systems have been automated, and could easily be checked form their online FAQ and Knowledge base that they provide. Everything else is easily handled from their browser based interface
We participate to a in person training and the three days of learning was really useful and complete to gain skill to solve the major part of the problem we encounter during our life. And more the in person training give us the opportunity to create a network with other WatchGuard partner.
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
I had my key information for setting up the firewall, and they assisted me in finding the settings and appropriate places to enter data. They also helped troubleshoot when I didn't understand some of their feature concepts, and we got it running.
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.
I would rate Sophos second on this list right below Webroot. Webroot has an easier user interface and policy builder. However, Sophos would be on top of its UI would be improved. I would rank CrowStrike third and McAfee last. Sophos is great for complex environments that have multiple needs.
WatchGuard is what I use exclusively now. I have removed all other firewalls. WatchGuard is easier to maintain and easier to set up, PLUS WatchGuard Tech Support is very responsive and helpful. I am very familiar with both the System Management software and the Web-based access to the firewalls, and feel comfortable with the programming and troubleshooting in both areas.
This product is very scalable since previously everything related to Watchguard was on premises but that has now changed with the inclusion of watchguard cloud. Now the product has evolved to have full control of firewalls at the cloud level.
WatchGuard is a well-established company in the industry, and we are confident in its security solutions.
This solution meets/exceeds our security objectives for CMMC and the DoD standards.
I wish their cloud management were much stronger and provided more features similar to those of Meraki. If it did, we would exclusively sell these devices.