I have worked with other solutions similar to Cisco Secure Firewall, and in the past, I worked with Pulse Secure VPN. My experience with Pulse Secure VPN was also good in the past. In the near past, I replaced a lot of Ivanti VPN with Cisco Secure Firewall. The migration to Cisco Secure Firewall was caused by many security incidents on the side of Ivanti.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall is that the end-users have a good experience with the remote access VPN, are happy to use it, and have to use it every day. That is very satisfying for the customer.

The scalability of Cisco Secure Firewall is sufficient to meet the growing needs of my clients.

My experience with the documentation is that sometimes it refers to Cisco ASA instead of Cisco Secure Firewall, and the screenshots are not accurate. That is sometimes confusing for my customers.

The stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Firewall is reliable. The high-availability function of Cisco Secure Firewall helps to minimize downtimes, which is why I find it reliable.

My clients have never tried to expand its usage, or there was not a need for it. It is always enough for them because we are good at planning, so they do not need to resize.

My experience with the customer service and technical support of Cisco Secure Firewall is mostly with the partner support and not with the TAC directly.

In the past, my installations of Cisco Secure Firewall were on-premise.

I would describe the deployment process for Cisco Secure Firewall as straightforward. The deployment process is very easy because Cisco Secure Firewall has a good setup in the Firepower Management Center.

I was not told about a return on investment, but my clients are happy to use the remote access VPN solution.

My experience with the price, the setup costs, and the licensing of Cisco Secure Firewall is that the price and the licenses are fair and competitive in the market.

I have worked with other solutions similar to Cisco Secure Firewall, and in the past, I worked with Pulse Secure VPN. My experience with Pulse Secure VPN was also good in the past. In the near past, I replaced a lot of Ivanti VPN with Cisco Secure Firewall. The migration to Cisco Secure Firewall was caused by many security incidents on the side of Ivanti.

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall are ensuring that the offices and the users are protected behind a firewall and that the segments on the network are created.

The feature I like the most about Cisco Secure Firewall is the management of it because I can remotely manage everything that I need to do, not only the firewall but also the access points, the switches, and other devices. When they call me, I can fix something remotely without needing to drive over there.

It is typically all in one dashboard, but if I go to Cisco Secure Access and Connect, then it becomes a little bit confusing related to what products I need to use and buy.

I think the aspect that can be improved in Cisco Secure Firewall solution is the marketing approach. As I mentioned before, it confuses me related to the umbrella portals for secure access, not the SSE part of it.

I am uncertain about how the end users go to the network and also to the internet. What was previously done in Meraki Secure Connect is now referred to with the marketing term Secure Access, which is confusing to me. I don't know which license I need. I don't know if I'm going to be transitioned or not, or if I'm supposed to migrate myself. This is confusing because I need to be in different portals nowadays still, and I don't know what the future will bring.

Even when I'm at Cisco, I ask around but they say to ask my partner to transition me, but it doesn't seem to be that simple.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for two years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Firewall solution as excellent. I don't have any crashes or downtime or anything like that, which is good.

I have also used Sophos, specifically Sophos firewalls, before.

The experience of deployment with Cisco Secure Firewall is very easy. I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall in the Meraki dashboard, which means I just need to connect them all and have my licenses ready. Deployment-wise, it is smooth and very straightforward.

I can say that it is always difficult to determine if I have seen a return on investment from having Cisco Secure Firewall solution. It is an insurance that I take, something I need to do, but I don't know if it has already prevented me from an attacker or anything like that.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is all good. The initial price is good. The only issue is if I don't renew my licenses after three or five years, my box becomes useless and I can't do anything with it anymore. I need to have an active license to make sure that I can use the product. I understand that if I'm using it in a production environment, I need the support and the licenses.

However, from a sustainable point of view, if I don't have a license, I can't do anything with it anymore, even not on my local home server installation. I think that is a pity. I have never had anything without licenses, but I can imagine if I don't have a license, then it becomes like a brick.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall, I considered another solution, specifically Fortinet, and I considered Cato Cloud or Cato Networks, along with other OT vendors as well, such as Moxa or Teltonika.

I chose Cisco first of all for the partner and then second of all for the pricing. The pricing was good enough to convince me to go ahead with Cisco because Cisco is a well-known brand all over the world, which I couldn't say from other OT vendors such as Moxa or Teltonika. That is why I chose Cisco.

I transitioned away from those systems with a hybrid approach. I still have small components on-site, but mostly everything is in the public cloud in Azure. Many SaaS services are also part of this.

In Azure, there is nothing for on-premises. There is nothing that the internal users are using. I have a website in AWS, but I am not using it actively, so it is outsourced.

I would give Cisco Secure Firewall more points if everything were all in one dashboard and they did not confuse me with marketing. Overall, I would rate this review an 8 out of 10.

We are deploying Cisco Secure Firewall for customers in the cloud, on-premise, or all around, depending on the customer. We have small customers that are migrating to the cloud, so we have to deploy virtual firewalls as well as on-premise solutions for both large-scale and small-scale operations.

The best return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall is the visibility. From my point of view, the best return on investment is the visibility. With Firepower Management and the FMC, you are able to really see everything that's going on in your network.

From my point of view, the stability and reliability of the product is quite good. The firewall sensors and the management are quite stable. We are encountering some problems, but mostly when you implement the solution correctly, you don't have any problems besides hardware failure, which is really rare.

Scalability for Cisco Secure Firewall is a good point. It's hard to say because mostly we are consulting and planning together with the customer. If they can see upfront or if they know when they have to scale big, then we can scale with them. I think the appliances are well scaled for the use of the customer.

I have a lot of experience with the customer service and technical support of Cisco. Recently, we managed to get one of the Cisco engineers to connect with us to solve some customer problems.

My experience with the customer service and technical support of Cisco is quite excellent. The engineers are top-notch and they know what they are doing. They are really experts in their field.

Regarding customer service, I'm not as familiar with that aspect. However, with the technical support, when you know the right people and when you really have problems which you can't solve on your own, they are behind you and they can help you mostly.

I have worked with other solutions in the past, different ones. The vibe which is in Cisco equipment caught me from the early days. When I started, the first security appliance I saw was Cisco PIX. I worked sometimes with Cisco ASA, and this was all before I came to Bechtle. Now I'm where I want to be.

Deploying Cisco Secure Firewall is getting easier, so I would describe the experience as straightforward. You are now able to preconfigure the appliances to send out, so you don't need engineers on site. In some cases, you can preconfigure and send it to the customer, and the customer is able to plug it in and it has access to WAN or to the internet. You are up and can run the system. I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall overall as an eight or a nine out of ten.

This is mostly the system I'm working with, so I do work with other solutions other than Cisco Secure Firewall, but we do have other teams working with other vendors. We are at a point where things are getting more and more complicated and you need more and more knowledge to do the implementation correctly. My goal is to do Cisco and to do it the best I can and do it properly.

I'm mostly on the implementation side, so pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing are not really my part in the business. I hear it's quite expensive, but the service you get is worth it. When you invest so much, you will get a lot of service. About licensing, I don't have experience with other vendors regarding licensing, so I would say the licensing is quite good. I'm not sure if there are any other downsides, so I consider it acceptable.

My use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is because the old solution for the VPN access for the employees and also for the external contractors was already out of date, and there was no possibility of somehow prolonging it. So we did the search for a new solution and from the auction and bidding, Cisco Secure Firewall came.

I consider the most valuable aspect of Cisco Secure Firewall to be that we are basically using it only for termination of the VPN, so that's basically the most valuable thing for us.

If I could improve Cisco Secure Firewall in any way, I have no clue, to be honest. I really don't know what to improve. It's working as it should be. Maybe it would be nice to have a better overview regarding the logging, regarding the issues a client can have with the VPN. But I can understand that because the primary feature for the firewall is not the VPN; it's the firewall, but we are not using the firewall.

There is still room to improve. There can be some things that can be better, such as some of the menu and some of the visibility. It's not chaotic, but it's not that user-friendly.

The GUI of Cisco Secure Firewall could improve, as there are better solutions in terms of how they look and how they can be navigated.

I find the solution reliable and stable, and I can say that there is no downtime. As I am used to Cisco products, they are stable and reliable.

I think that what we bought is overkill, but whatever. Basically, it can serve up to 1,000 clients on VPN, so for us it's basically unlimited. The largest number I have seen on the dashboard was 300 users connected on the VPN.

My experience with Cisco customer support has been nice all the time. Sometimes they can take their time, but if they are properly motivated, they can be fast.

If I had to rate their support from one to ten, with ten being best and one being worst, I would give it an eight.

I evaluated basically the new solution from Pulse Secure, which is now called Ivanti.

The reason we chose Cisco Secure Firewall was more or less politics because Ivanti didn't have the hardware, and they will not have the hardware in the foreseeable future. So we went with the only one who was able to provide it to us.

The deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall was kind of straightforward and was not problematic.

It took us two months, together with the migration, but the thing is that we needed to change the groups and rules and everything in the background. It was more or less up to us, not up to the platform. We needed to change things on our side.

It was internal, not the product's fault. The migration was lengthy.

Regarding the pricing and licensing of Cisco Secure Firewall, it's not up to me.

I know that it was purchased from our partner, from the local distributor.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being best and one being worst, I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall overall with my past experience as nice. Because I cannot say it was good, from the point of view when I was able to look through Cisco Secure Firewall, it was nice. The FTD, the Firepower Threat Detection, is really mature, but the former ASA was a pain in the ass.

The former ASA was a pain in the ass because when someone is used to the Cisco way, the ASA was a strange thing. My overall rating for this product is 8 out of 10.

Our main use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is to protect the data center workloads and branch infrastructure.

Many features of Cisco Secure Firewall help us. One of the features is Cisco ISE to authenticate and authorize users and user devices, along with the data center switches and campus switches Catalyst, together with DNA Center.

For segmentation of our application workloads in the data center for East-West traffic, Cisco Secure Firewall is essential.

We primarily use Cisco Secure Firewall as a firewalling solution with basic ACL functionality.

I don't think there are things that could be improved or features that I would have in Cisco Secure Firewall.

We have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for five to six years.

We did not have any major issues with Cisco Secure Firewall. Sometimes some features are a bit buggy, but it doesn't really result in any major outages.

We have quite static infrastructure, so we did not have any growth requirements in the past with Cisco Secure Firewall, so I cannot provide information about that.

We use customer service for Cisco Secure Firewall. Sometimes the GUI is very laggy and slow, and it improves with every update we receive, but sometimes that is a small problem. My rating for customer service is 4.

Before having Cisco Secure Firewall, we used several solutions from different vendors.

We still use Check Point as well, even after changing to Cisco Secure Firewall.

You need some knowledge to set up Cisco Secure Firewall, but overall, there is good documentation and it was doable.

We do not currently have a dedicated implementation team for Cisco Secure Firewall.

It is hard to say if there was something we implemented with Cisco Secure Firewall that gives us a return on investment.

Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Cisco Secure Firewall, it is not that relevant, but from my experience, it can be very complex to oversee and to have a good view on the cost and licensing. It is a bit simpler with Cisco Smart, but it can be a challenge.

We did consider another solution before selecting Cisco Secure Firewall. However, we did not want to have that many vendors in the enterprise.

I prefer staying in the same Cisco ecosystem with one or two vendors maximum.

Check Point is one vendor on the firewall level that we still use.

We have to deploy the full feature set of Cisco Secure Firewall, so I cannot provide information about partial deployments.

Our main use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is to have the different clients secured in their own VLAN and subnet, ensuring effective segregation of our network.

We do not have an internet connection with Cisco Secure Firewall; basically, it is all on-premise. We have different use cases and those need to stay separated, so they do not interfere with each other.

My main usage for Cisco Secure Firewall is that I work in a train company where we are basically managing the network for the different use cases of the train. Those need to get separated, so the phone does not interfere with the cameras, for example, and we only allow the designated ports to the other.

What I appreciate most about Cisco Secure Firewall is that it has been working since we bought it without any failure, highlighting its reliability and performance.

An example of how Cisco Secure Firewall benefits my organization is that it performs its function very effectively. We use it as a router, and it works really well, ensuring our operations run smoothly.

I think the old interface could be improved, as it is not that good. Cisco Firewall Management Center is much better, but I need to get more experience with that because we do not really have any experience with it. I did not work extensively with it as we are in the migrating phase.

I have been using a Cisco firewall, specifically the ASA, for ten years and now we are migrating to Cisco Secure Firewall, which represents our ongoing commitment to network security.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Firewall as performing really well. We have had one small issue, but it happened over ten years, and with the new one, we have had no issues.

I believe Cisco Secure Firewall can scale and grow with the needs of my organization because we bought the biggest model, so we do not really need to scale anywhere. We roughly calculated this and it should last the next nine to ten years, so if we buy a new one, it will probably have more performance, but the next ten years are secure.

I have used customer service for Cisco Secure Firewall. We have a partner between us and Cisco and only the extreme cases get to Cisco. Most of the time our partner, Logicalis, will solve the problem for us because they have experts, so only really problems with the software or these kinds of things get right to Cisco.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall, we have a complete Cisco network, so we tried to keep the network together, completely Cisco. Therefore, there were no other solutions, as we did not use one before and we did not consider different options.

I would describe the experience of deploying Cisco Secure Firewall as very smooth. We used the migration software which just took the complete ASA configuration and put it in Cisco Secure Firewall in Cisco Firewall Management Center, and that was it; it worked.

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall include serving as a perimeter firewall between the data center and users, and as the firewall between the internet and users.

An example of how Cisco Secure Firewall benefits my organization is that we use it with Azure, along with Azure firewall and FTD, and it works very well.

Cisco Secure Firewall is highly performant and easy to manage.

Cisco Secure Firewall handles this adequately, but a simpler licensing model would be beneficial, especially when using the firewall in the cloud, since on-premises performance is limited by the hardware being used.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for approximately fifteen years, starting from Cisco PIX.

Cisco Secure Firewall has demonstrated good reliability and stability. Although we did not invest heavily, which results in limited performance due to our license being restricted to one gigabit, that is our constraint rather than a Cisco limitation. I have not experienced any crashes or downtime with Cisco Secure Firewall, and everything has operated smoothly.

Cisco Secure Firewall can scale with the growing needs of my organization.

I have not needed to use customer service.

Deploying Cisco Secure Firewall is very straightforward and uncomplicated, as the systems are simple to deploy and the graphic interface is user-friendly.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Cisco Secure Firewall is positive.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall, I considered some competitors, as we have other firewalls from different vendors. It is beneficial to use firewalls from different vendors because if someone can overcome one firewall, there is the other firewall for protection.

I selected Cisco Secure Firewall because it works well in the Azure environment.

One of the biggest use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall is Public Bank; they use it in Malaysia, but we implemented it in the Sri Lankan branches.

When a global company is using Cisco Secure Firewall, they would prefer to go with the same product with the same switching and firewall, making it an umbrella solution.

I think the UTM is the best feature of Cisco Secure Firewall.

The UTM features are indeed the best.

The reason why the UTM feature of Cisco Secure Firewall is the best is because the customer is more concerned with security; for a worldwide company, they need the most security, and I think it's very suitable for the most secure companies.

The centralized management console in Cisco Secure Firewall is effective and helpful.

Most of the partners are looking for AI-driven solutions now, so if Cisco improves more on the AI part than other products, it will be very good when they are trying to capture the market.

Cisco Secure Firewall has to enhance its AI part.

Customers using Cisco Secure Firewall are looking for UTM features, and some enhancements have to be done, such as when you block applications, more applications have to be able to be blocked and categorized.

I've been working with Cisco Secure Firewall for around 15 years as a partner.

Cisco Secure Firewall is stable, and there are no issues or challenges that my customers have faced with it.

Customers use Cisco Secure Firewall both on the cloud and on-premises, and it is a scalable solution and easy to scale.

My experience with Cisco support is good. I would rate the technical support of Cisco Secure Firewall eight out of ten.

The deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall takes one day.

Customers see a return on investment with Cisco Secure Firewall, and it is workable in terms of value for money.

Competitively, Checkpoint is the best, but considering pricing and everything else, Cisco Secure Firewall is also the best product.

Cisco Firewall is better in terms of cost and is cheaper; unlike other products, if the license expires, no features work, but Cisco isn't that way. Most of the time, they have perpetual licenses, so that's the best solution customers are looking for.

The threat intelligence functionalities in Cisco Secure Firewall are also good, but when considering Checkpoint and others, they have some enhanced features; there is some differentiation, but it's also good.

They need a global, one single vendor, which is why they see value for money with Cisco Secure Firewall.

I recommend Cisco Secure Firewall because it's a global vendor.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall an 8.

Our main use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is to protect our RTU traffic, specifically on the operational technology side, for SCADA systems. For our side, we don't have encrypted traffic; for the most part, we have the firewall to protect everything behind it when it comes to RTU traffic, which is remote terminal units.

The visibility and control capabilities of Cisco Secure Firewall benefit our company by making it easier for us to parse through traffic that is denied or allowed through, and that helps us with troubleshooting, so it does help cut down on troubleshooting.

The feature of Cisco Secure Firewall that I prefer the most is the use of ASDM where we visually are able to see all of our traffic when it comes through the firewall.

Cisco Secure Firewall does a good job unifying policies across our environments because we have many firewalls that have the same rules, so when Cisco Secure Firewalls are able to do that, that's very beneficial.

The fact that unifying policies will help us save time, costs, and be more efficient in general is very important for our company. Unfortunately, the impact of the cloud-delivered firewall on our company's security posture is negligible since we are an air-gapped system, and we do not deal with the cloud infrastructure.

Cisco Secure Firewall does a good job in helping our company implement a zero-trust security model, and it deserves an eight out of ten.

Cisco Secure Firewall could be improved in terms of the GUI and management. It could be more intuitive, as sometimes there might be too many features and buttons that make it harder when we're trying to parse through information.

To make Cisco Secure Firewall a ten out of ten, improving the documentation of all the features would help significantly. I sometimes feel I'm just searching around on Google for specific configurations compared to Palo Alto, which has more detailed steps.

We've been using Cisco Secure Firewall for about 20 years. We've had it since the whole creation of our RT team.

In terms of stability and reliability, Cisco Secure Firewall is reliable. We haven't had real issues where these firewalls have gone down or anything of that nature, so we're happy with the consistency.

When it comes to the scalability of Cisco Secure Firewall, it scales very efficiently and is easy to implement with the growing needs of our company.

Our experience with customer service or technical support through TAC for Cisco Secure Firewall could be more in-depth instead of going through the first levels.

We often find ourselves trying to escalate faster because we need timely responses. I would rate the customer service and technical support from Cisco Secure Firewall a six out of ten. They're good and know what they're doing in general. That said, it's not where we want it to be.

We considered Palo Alto before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall, and we do have some Palo Altos on the network to compare. We're mostly using Cisco products in general. I'm aware Palo Alto is a strong competitor when it comes to firewalls.

The deployment is pretty seamless. Sometimes we do have some issues with Palo Alto Fireworks, where when it comes to deploying, it's not as intuitive. It doesn't work correctly, and there are some bugs that come up. So we have to troubleshoot that aspect. Cisco Secure Firewalls is pretty pretty seamless.

The biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall comes from how intuitive it is. The more it's able to identify issues during troubleshooting, the better the ROI we achieve.

I'm not too concerned about the pricing of Cisco Secure Firewall. The pricing is fixed, and we're comfortable with it since pricing doesn't matter as much since we have to purchase it if there's a need for it.

The main differences between Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto come down to the GUI. They are on par when comparing unified policy and how to make things more intuitive for monitoring traffic and creating rules based on that traffic.

We haven't used any new features or functionalities in Cisco Secure Firewall recently. The features work efficiently, and I can't think of anything new that I would want right now.

I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall overall an eight out of ten; it's reliable, and we have no real issues.

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall are mainly user access to the internet and blocking firewall sites.

With the centralized management of Cisco Secure Firewall, it's good in unifying policies across my environment. The simplicity and supportability are important to my organization as it's much easier if everything's the same as much as possible.

I appreciate that the central management of Cisco Secure Firewall is from one location, which saves a lot of time.

The IPS protection is good for us for security reasons.

The central management feature of Cisco Secure Firewall saves one location instead of having to log on to multiple locations, which speeds up deployment of any changes or requirements for monitoring.

The upgrading process of Cisco Secure Firewall is a long process on a per-firewall basis, and it would be nice if that could be improved. One firewall can take two to two and a half hours to upgrade, so we end up having to watch it. It becomes a problem; in the old firewall days, it would be about a ten-minute job. I know it's more complicated with the newer firewalls. It's just a long-winded process even if they have sorted it out a little bit with automation.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for probably about eight years.

I have not had one Cisco Secure Firewall fail so far, which shows it is stable and reliable. Right now, I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Cisco Secure Firewall.

Cisco Secure Firewall scales with the growing needs of my organization, as we have different models and sizes, and our central boxes are powerful enough to cover whatever we want whenever we want.

My evaluation of customer service and technical support for Cisco Secure Firewall is that I have generally hardly ever had to use them. We did two weeks ago, and it was a very quick response that identified exactly where the issue in our configuration was.

Two weeks ago, I received a very quick response from customer service, which identified exactly where the issue on our configuration was, and it went very smoothly, so out of ten, I would give it a nine.

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Firewall, I was also using previous Cisco firewalls, and before that, we had Fortinet and Juniper.

The factors that led me to consider the change to Cisco Secure Firewall were actually price, as Cisco's was a very competitive price, and we received a very good deal.

My experience with the deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall has been generally okay.

I have seen a return on investment with Cisco Secure Firewall since we run them for a long time.

Our current Cisco Secure Firewall units have been in place for probably over three years now, and at the moment, we're not looking to replace them, indicating a good return on investment since they last and are supported quite a long time after they're released.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco Secure Firewall shows it can be expensive, especially the bigger boxes, since they do a lot more and handle a lot more, with a big jump from the smaller firewalls to the big firewalls.

The other solutions I considered before selecting Cisco Secure Firewall include Fortinet, Juniper, and Palo Alto. We're generally a Cisco house and have been for quite a few times with the old Cisco firewalls, so it was a natural progression.

We did not purchase the product on AWS Marketplace.

We actually don't do that much encrypted inspecting traffic at the moment with Cisco Secure Firewall, which is something we want to look at. We just want to make sure we don't max out the CPU with the many jobs it does. Cisco Secure Firewall will be a building block part of our zero-trust security model, however, there will be a few other parts needed, such as Cisco Secure Access.

I have not really expanded the usage of Cisco Secure Firewall. My advice to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Firewall is that it does what it says on the tin; it works, it's reliable, and I have never had one fail, so I think it's good.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall a nine.