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
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.
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 …
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.
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.
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!
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 …
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 …
None of the other next-generation firewall appliances competed on ease of use/setup, feature set, and price as well as WatchGuard. WatchGuard uses best-in-breed technologies from expert vendors to run their individual security services where other vendors create inferior …
Cisco ASA is tough to manage and provides limited functionality without expensive licensing. Sophos SG was missing some of the more advanced functionality of WatchGuard.
Price and ease of use are huge factors in our small business and we felt Watchguard was far and above a better value because of those 2 issues. The appliances we settled on offer equally effective service and features at a better price.
I have used both the Cisco ASA and a Palo Alto virtual firewall and both do great jobs. But both of these firewall solutions are more expensive and more complicated to use for a smaller business and most of the features they offer are not needed at our level. WatchGuard was …
I prefer WatchGuard over Cisco due to the ease of deployment and integrated security features. I consider Cisco to be as reliable as WatchGuard. WatchGuard can be deployed much more rapidly than Cisco. WatchGuard is a much better value overall.