Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vs. Forcepoint NGFW

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN gives users the ability to manage connectivity across their WAN from a single dashboard that simplifies day to day monitoring and operations. Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN can be cloud-managed or deployed on premise offering comprehensive routing, security and policy control, along with advanced analytics with the flexibility to connect to multiple clouds with greater speed, reliability, and efficiency. According to the vendor, it can be deployed across a small number of…N/A
Forcepoint NGFW
Score 10.0 out of 10
N/A
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall (NGFW) promises seamless and central management, whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Administrators can deploy, monitor and update thousands of firewalls, VPNs and IPSs in minutes, all from a single console. The vendor says that the product reduces network operating expenses by as much as 50%. Advanced clustering for firewalls and networks eliminates downtime, and administrators can rapidly map business processes into strong, accurate controls to…N/A
Pricing
Cisco Catalyst SD-WANForcepoint NGFW
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Catalyst SD-WANForcepoint NGFW
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Cisco Catalyst SD-WANForcepoint NGFW
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
Cisco Catalyst SD-WANForcepoint NGFW
Firewall
Comparison of Firewall features of Product A and Product B
Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN
-
Ratings
Forcepoint NGFW
8.1
1 Ratings
5% below category average
Identification Technologies00 Ratings5.01 Ratings
Visualization Tools00 Ratings5.01 Ratings
Content Inspection00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Policy-based Controls00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Active Directory and LDAP00 Ratings8.01 Ratings
Firewall Management Console00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Reporting and Logging00 Ratings8.01 Ratings
VPN00 Ratings9.01 Ratings
High Availability00 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Stateful Inspection00 Ratings7.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Cisco Catalyst SD-WANForcepoint NGFW
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

pfSense
pfSense
Score 9.2 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Cisco Routers
Cisco Routers
Score 8.4 out of 10
pfSense
pfSense
Score 9.2 out of 10
Enterprises
Cisco Routers
Cisco Routers
Score 8.4 out of 10
Next-Generation Firewalls - PA Series
Next-Generation Firewalls - PA Series
Score 9.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Cisco Catalyst SD-WANForcepoint NGFW
Likelihood to Recommend
8.6
(73 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.1
(2 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.1
(1 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
8.3
(15 ratings)
6.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Cisco Catalyst SD-WANForcepoint NGFW
Likelihood to Recommend
Cisco
It is a flexible tool for managing and optimizing WAN connections, but it does require some technical expertise to manage. It excels in its ability to integrate multiple WANs. It will however be a not-so-useful purchase if your company has few locations as it will be more expensive and complex for nothing.
Read full review
Forcepoint
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.
Read full review
Pros
Cisco
  • Enhancing network security by integrating with other security solutions and providing secure segmentation of the network.
  • Improving network visibility and control by providing detailed analytics and network-wide policy management.
  • Simplifying branch office networking by reducing the need for specialized hardware and simplifying network management.
Read full review
Forcepoint
  • 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.
Read full review
Cons
Cisco
  • It does appear to be a little glitchy when you go from template mode to CLI mode and try to do testing on certain areas. The configuration tends to get hung in that old session when you drop it from being controlled by the controller to making changes in CLI. I've had a lot of instances where you try to put it back into controller mode for review management and it holds on to your items you've had in CLI mode , it gets a little confused at which config it needs to use. You end up having to reset the whole number environment.
Read full review
Forcepoint
  • 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.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Cisco
highly recommended
Read full review
Forcepoint
No answers on this topic
Usability
Cisco
It is the best solution on the market.
Read full review
Forcepoint
The Graphical User Interface is very easy to read, understand and work with. The usability of this product is very high.
Read full review
Support Rating
Cisco
Al ser soluciones integradas del portafolio de soluciones de Cisco, el soporte es transversal a cada uno de los componentes implementados, teniendo el cliente la capacidad de resolver sus inconvenientes bajo una misma infraestructura que está totalmente homologada, satisfacciendo de esta manera, las necesidades del cliente asi como permitiendo, que este se concentre en su negocio. Since the Cisco SD-WAN tools are a part of Cisco’s broader portfolio of solutions, support cross-cuts to each of our deployed components, with our company as the customer having the ability to solve our problems through the same, approved infrastructure. Their support team easily satisfies the customer’s needs so that they continue to focus on business functions.
Read full review
Forcepoint
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.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Cisco
The proof-of-concept setup that was done at a client site did provided a greater positive impression by Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN than Fortinet Secure SD-WAN for sure. It makes sense to use Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN while the major client is a Cisco house where more than 95% of network equipment used at their global networks are Cisco's.
Read full review
Forcepoint
There are similar hardware and license costs between the two products. The Forcepoint NGFW product is by far easier to use and manage.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Cisco
  • It's definitely decreased the amount that we spend on really expensive circuits every year. We're moving to cheaper broadband circuits with much higher throughput, being able to leverage those and still get the performance that we want, the quality of service that we want.
Read full review
Forcepoint
  • 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.
Read full review
ScreenShots