Cisco Firepower 4100 Series vs. Forcepoint NGFW

When we are asked by local partners which security equipment we use we always recommend our Cisco security products. The Firepower firewall is no exception and we can easily recommend this to others who need a fast, secure, and well built system that integrates well with all your existing hardware and software.

Incentivized

If you are looking for a smaller network/security team, the ease and low complexity create an easy to manage environment. One engineer can easily manage 100 nodes/locations. If you are just starting to get security conscious and predict regular adjustments to policy, routing, and access, this is a very good system for making easy to understand and low impact changes on a regular basis without operations interruption.

Incentivized

• Policy management in the GUI. I'm old-school, and still create ACLs in the CLI, but using the GUI for this is very nice.
• Event monitoring and reporting is great, and you can get very granular when it comes to what information you are viewing.
• I really like the troubleshooting features that are built in, especially the packet tracer and the ability to generate and download a troubleshooting package to review or send to TAC.

• 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.

Incentivized

• When deployed as Firepower Threat Defense, configurations cannot be made within the device itself.
• Troubleshooting can be difficult if the Cisco Firepower 4100 Series firewall is managed by the Cisco Firepower Management Center.
• There are two operating systems in Cisco Firepower 4100 Series, firmware upgrade process will take a long time.

• 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.

Incentivized

The Graphical User Interface is very easy to read, understand and work with. The usability of this product is very high.

Incentivized

Support has varied over the history of the company. Terro is a name that comes up often with the best of service from this company.

Incentivized

As I mentioned before, the Fortigates have better failover. I think the Cisco interface is easier to use that that of the FortiGate. My only criticism would be that with multiple CLIs, it can get a bit confusing when you are trying to configure something or troubleshoot from the CLI.

There are similar hardware and license costs between the two products. The Forcepoint NGFW product is by far easier to use and manage.

Incentivized

• Positive impact would be our increased security network wide.
• Another positive would be the increased processing power, saving us time and [from] needing more equipment.
• A negative impact would be the increased need for having to learn a new interface.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized