Cisco Secure Firewall delivers comprehensive threat protection for modern, distributed networks. Built to support hybrid workforces and multicloud environments, it enables Zero Trust access, application visibility, and secure remote connectivity. With integration across the Cisco Secure portfolio, including SecureX and Talos threat intelligence, the firewall powers organizations to detect and stop more sophisticated threats. Centralized management simplifies policy enforcement, orchestration,…
N/A
Sophos UTM
Score 8.5 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 8.7 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 Secure Firewall
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 Secure Firewall
Sophos UTM
WatchGuard Network Security
Free Trial
Yes
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
I would say both are great piece of hardware and I'm not selecting one over another, as I have used both for different purposes and would like to do same for my clients.
Cisco provides a far superior product based on our evaluations. Along with the integrations of or other Cisco products that are not available from other vendors
Fortinet is a great competitor but it has had a lot of vulnerabilities and fair share of issues. We chose Cisco Secure Firewall solely because we are a CIsco environment that uses a lot of the Cisco products. We use the Catalyst switches, the Meraki switches and access points …
Cisco Secure Firewall is worth all the money spent. it allows you to create and manage your configuration in a very easy way, furthermore, with the analytics you can see what is happening in your network in real time, and this is very important with all the threats nowadays. …
Fortinet and Palo both offer strong firewall capabilites but integrating them with the rest of our Cisco infra required additionnal efforts and multiple management consoles (so less visibility). With Cisco Secure Firewall, everyting operates in a complementary and unified way …
I have used from other vendors like Palo Alto, Fortinet, Ubiquiti. This product is the whole thing. I mean, when you're buying a product from Cisco, you're buying a support function, you buy a whole case for products. And with all that other products Cisco have, like the SNR, …
Software Stability: While the hardware is legendary for its reliability (low RMA rates), the software (FTD) has historically been prone to bugs during major version jumps.
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 …
We replaced our SonicWall with a Sophos UTM. The SonicWall didn't do half of the things the Sophos UTM can do. We wanted an all in one solution that was increased security and was easy to use. Managing Sophos compared to Sonicwall has been so much easier. It has saved us a lot …
The Linksys was a router, so the comparison isn't quite the same, but I previously worked on a SonicWall firewall. The setup is by far easier on the Sophos UTM device. That alone makes it enticing, but thrown multiple services options such as email and web filtering, endpoint …
Systems Administrator | POS Programming Specialist
Chose Sophos UTM
The Meraki firewalls are kind of like the little brother of the UTM devices. They work really well and integrate nicely, but it would be better suited for a business that using nothing but Meraki gear. pfSense is a great free tool, but not very business oriented nor is the …
The high feature set of Sophos, along with the price point made it a perfect fit for our organization. Of course, we were promised many features and capabilities, and I'm happy to report that this tool delivered on all of those. On top of that, or resale partner recommended it …
Unlike Sophos UTM, Dell SonicWall's features are mostly subscription based which means you'll have to purchase additional items such as VPN connectivity per user etc.
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 …
Sophos delivers great throughput, and great and simple WebGUI. There is no other honest (or even capable) high availability scenario for industries that needs 99% of uptime (almost everyone, since now everyone relies on the Internet). Robust hardware and in the software …
I use it at home because it's better than just using a Wireless Router; has more features than most home users require and or know exists, such as the ability to use VPN to protect your connection if you're using public WIFI.
Fortinet also has impressive software but WatchGuard support has been better. MFA being integrated with Active Directory allows for ease of management through the local AD server. The aesthetics of WatchGuard Network Security with it being red allow for a nice look on the rack …
The real pluses that WatchGaurd offers is both price and usability. While some products have excelled at one, finding one that offers both has been consistently Watchguard. We have used Watchguard for 20 years now and over that time we have been able to rely on the fact that …
If my clients need a higher level of protection I go with WatchGuard do to my 20+ years of experience with WatchGuard products and the support options WG provides. I don't see me wanting to learn or implement other products.
I was not involved with the decision making for WatchGuard versus another product. However, I know WatchGuard is significantly less expensive than other brands. My overall preference would be Ubiquiti due to their continuous improvement of the product with tons of great …
WatchGuard has a slightly better and more intuitive user interface than SonicWall's OS. WatchGuard support is also better and more consistent in their answers.
WatchGuard Network Security has a more palatable licensing model and comes at a much more reasonable price for comparable security features. I find the WatchGuard Network Security firewalls in particular to be much easier to configure and manage as well. The service is top …
WatchGuard Network Security stacks up very well against them and is the preferred option due to a variety of factors. First, you have the pricing and availability to work with our preferred vendors like TD Synnex. Then, we have the ease of use that makes the product simple to …
I looked at the products and the Critical Vulnerabilities list. WatchGuard Network Security had the least Critical and Least vulnerabilities when I checked.
Watchguard certainly wins against all the above for SMBs/distributed orgs and MSPs. No "heavy" agents and easier policy troubleshooting much better MFA
WatchGuard Network Security and Fortinet are very similar. In my opinion Fortinet is a bit better, but it is more expensive. We originally went with WatchGuard Network Security due to the pricing they offered over Fortinet. They both over very similar products and neither is a …
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 …
Our HPE Aruba networks were very difficult to manage in our environment. They were an older generation that fell short of functionality. That is not to say that HPE Aruba is an inferior product, but WatchGuard Network Security provides a much better value overall.
Although we still use Upiquity for WiFi or internet use, we still often rely on WatchGuard Network Security. We find the two very integrable and easy to use with each other. We selected WatchGuard Network Security because it delivers enterprise-grade protection to small to …
Very comparable. Functionality is pretty much the same with some minor difference. Interfacing is slightly better on the Watchguard and overall setup and ease of use seems to be better on the watchguard suite compared to Fortinet. Product offering is also better on the …
Watchguard Network Security made it easy to add on capabilities as our need for complexity grew. If we were to start over from scratch, we may go elsewhere. But vendor inertia has favored WatchGuard Network Security and its capabilities have been satisfactory enough to prevent …
they implemented AI features to their services and devices, but they lack of options to act as a backup appliance that have less complicated functions and setup progress so WatchGuard Network Security have these as advantages
Too costly to transition compared with renewal of WatchGuard Network Security, no demand for the stacked switch options, reduced network footprint after COVID lockdown.
I think the solutions are comparable, but the cloud management piece is critical for MSPs these days. We need to be able to schedule and push out updates as soon as they are stable and ready. Insurance companies and government regulations mandate this.
I can't think of scenarios where it is less appropriate, unless we are talking about real tiny businesses. More businesses will find Cisco Secure Firewall an outstanding tool to use, love, and trust from a reputable Network giant vendor. It is a must for businesses that want to focus on what they are doing, and leaving the network security for the pros.
Sophos is a very powerful anti-virus program that can be used in small and big businesses. Sophos has multiple features that can be customized to fit IT and business needs. Sophos would be less appropriate for IT personnel that do not have the time or knowledge of implementing the problem. The setup of its policies can be very complex.
One scenario where WatchGuard Network Security is well-suited for a task is when a site needs to be whitelisted. For example, if a site is whitelisted and hosted in a country blocked by geolocation, we can bypass the block and route traffic to the site. This is particularly helpful with CDN's.
Cisco's firewall actually does its job of blocking what it is supposed to block. We had an old Firewall that led to slippages. Cisco catches 97% of malware and vulnerabilities during testing. For Coitiar, that means an engineer who clicks a link with malware is handled quickly.
We actually tested if failovers would affect running sessions. We pulled our primary unit during a certification submission period. The firewall just switched, and the connection kept running.
The AI assistant in policy management is excellent, and for our lean team, it makes the whole process easy and efficient. I don't have to audit 200 policies manually; the AI steps in and does its thing.
I wish that the deployment of the updates to the sensors from the FMC was faster.
Cisco ASA firewall did a great job of authentication and authorization on the local firewall. FTD does not authorize users well in terms that an AAA must be setup to provide the granular tools that the ASA did.
Cisco's method of licensing the firewall can be improved. The FMC and the FTD are licensed through the Cisco software manager and there are instances where the devices are licensed but the firewall still displays and error due to licensing.
It works really well. We can do most anything we want or need to with it, and you don’t have to have a doctorate or multiple certs to necessarily figure it out. The thing that would probably have to happen to make us switch would be if we just got priced out - Cisco’s more powerful and higher bandwidth models cost a pretty penny.
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
i think overall after ALOT of tac cases it works allright now. But still have alot of issues if you use cloud based mangement. fx, if you open 2 windows of access policys, both of the pages, rules starte to jump form side to side. if you then open one more list, its start to jump even faster. if you close the 2 of them, its back to normal. ALSO the extended access lists for VPN, SUCKS. Its the tiniest window when opening the editor, and you are not able to give the rules names, Which means finding and editing rules SUCKS, its a horrible experience, and eveytime we have to we want to yell :P
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.
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.
We have not had any performance issues with Cisco Secure Firewall, even with DPI and IPS enabled, we have not seen a performance hit. Emoployes have not complained about any slow network speeds that could have been attributed to the secure firewall it has always been something else within the office network.
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.
Our experience with Cisco TAC support for Cisco Secure Firewall has been very good. The support engineers are knowledgeable about the product and have many tools available to them to work "under the hood" of the firewalls or management center. When we've had equipment failures, the RMA process has been simple and straightforward.
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.
For something that is considered business critical they should be far more responsive. Security isn't something to take lightly in today's work environment and so long as its working you are happy. But when it doesn't and you need that professional assistance, they weren't always there and I ultimately resolved my issues with the help of Google.
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.
was a good training but questions was answered not so good. Training was "Fundamentals of Cisco Firewall Threat Defense and Intrusion Prevention (SFWIPF)".
In the beginning transition from Adaptive Security Appliance to Cisco Secure Firewall did not look like the best choice. Solution was new, there were a lot of bugs and unsupported features and the actual execution in the form of configuration via Firepower Management Center was extremely slow. Compare configuring a feature via CLI on ASA in a manner of seconds (copy/paste) to deployment via FMC to Secure Firewall which took approx. 10 mins (no exaggeration). Today, situation is a bit different, overall solution looks much more stable and faster then it was but there's still room for improvement.
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.
Cisco Secure Firewall works better with the Cisco ecosystem when we can utilize it and feels beefy enough when we utilize it in the data center. The Fortinet we have found are great, small cost boxes for remote offices with a better UI then Cisco Secure Firewalls. The feature set included with the firewalls feels similar from a security point of view.
The Linksys was a router, so the comparison isn't quite the same, but I previously worked on a SonicWall firewall. The setup is by far easier on the Sophos UTM device. That alone makes it enticing, but thrown multiple services options such as email and web filtering, endpoint support, seamless WAP and RED device integration and it wasn't a very hard decision to make.
The real pluses that WatchGaurd offers is both price and usability. While some products have excelled at one, finding one that offers both has been consistently Watchguard. We have used Watchguard for 20 years now and over that time we have been able to rely on the fact that the experience gets better overtime and does not stagnate. Further, we have not had any issues with the security as opposed to products such as Fortinet.
Cisco Secure Firewall has never given us any trouble, it has stayed up at all times, upgrading the appliance has also become much simpler. We operate the appliance in a HA pair, so 0% downtime within our organisation. During switchover while upgrading, not a single packet seems to get lost, so this has been a very valuable asset to our company.
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.
Given we are an higher Ed. organization, our reselling leveraged that and got us a significant discount on the appliances. We have our licensing rolled into an EA. I would say we save over $100k in adoption costs, and at least that much per year on licensing.
We combine event data from our Cisco Secure Firewall Firepowers with ISE, Umbrella, Catalyst Center and other utilities to assist us with troubleshooting and security issues. The event logs are a bit difficult to use, and don't always provide us with useful information, but we do use the to correlate events across the tools.