We are using Cisco Secure Firewall on the edge of the network in our enterprise. We use it as a firewall and as an IPS device to protect against threats and malware, URL filtering, phishing, access control, VPN terminator, and site-to-site tunnels. We use all these features provided by Cisco Secure Firewall. I have 1140 FTD Firewalls, specifically the 1140 FTD model.

The most valuable feature I experience in Cisco Secure Firewall is in the IPS, along with the IPsec for IPsec tunneling with outside customers. I consider these specific features valuable to my organization because we have experienced and see the value for protection against malware and URL threats. We see there are a lot of attack attempts and ransomware, and we see how this device is very efficient.

We see the high availability feature in Cisco Secure Firewall. We have clustering nodes and we see how smooth the switching between the nodes is in case an incident occurs from the first node to the second node or the third node. So we see it offers high availability and redundancy to maintain the service up and running. All these features in Cisco Secure Firewall increase the efficiency level because it is very highly available, stable, and secure.

I wish to have a single management dashboard for Cisco Secure Firewall. There is no need to switch to the command line and into the management console, and I wish to reach this point to have one consolidated dashboard for all management requirements.

I have hands-on experience with Cisco Secure Firewall for more than 20 years.

My experience is very good with Cisco technologies in my current field. We have encountered stability and reliability, and we were very satisfied with this solution from the perspective of security and protection against any threats.

Cisco Secure Firewall is scalable. If we make a design or sizing very well with consulting the Cisco engineer, or if we always return to the Cisco teams to provide us with Cisco Validated Designs, we will achieve the scalability part.

I have used Cisco support when deploying Cisco Secure Firewall. Sometimes I need support, and we have a local partner supporting us, along with our own experience and references to the Cisco support cases and open cases with tech engineers. All these factors help us with deployment.

I would evaluate Cisco's customer support for Cisco Secure Firewall as near to 10. My experience with Cisco is above 22 years, and I have opened hundreds of cases with Cisco. The response time and the professionalism of the tech engineers are very helpful and efficient.

Before implementing Cisco Secure Firewall, we were using another vendor for firewalls in the data center and on the edge, and we encountered issues with efficiency. Sometimes the dashboard or the datasheet is not accurate about the efficiency or the threshold for the throughput, and the datasheet regarding throughput is not accurate in some vendors. But we see that the datasheet for Cisco is near accurate.

Deploying Cisco Secure Firewall is effective because it is advanced technology. It needs some experience, training, self-study, and support from the tech engineer side.

Cisco Secure Firewall increased my efficiency by above 90 percent.

My experience with pricing and licensing of Cisco Secure Firewall is that it is not too expensive. I think it is within the range of the market, and it is acceptable.

Before implementing Cisco Secure Firewall, I evaluated other vendors.

I have visibility into the threats that I encounter. I recommend customers who have never experienced a Cisco device to check the POC with Cisco. I think they will be satisfied. I would rate this review as a 9 out of 10.

The use case at my company is to secure our campus and our different data centers.

My most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Firewall is that I can see what is where, which rules are applied where, and create templates. In general, it's a good feature for us.

Having Cisco Secure Firewall has definitely helped our organization because we are a German company that follows rules, so we have governance. We need to deploy the same type of governance everywhere, and it's much easier to deploy this way, even with some country-to-country differences.

To improve Cisco Secure Firewall product, we have a TAC case open for that, but I would prioritize responsiveness for sure, as UX/UI is always something to work on. We have complaints from our NOC people, but they are always complaining.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall at my company for a year.

When it comes to reliability with Cisco Secure Firewall, it's not necessarily about downtime; it's about reliability in updates. We want something that can be updated easily and reliably. When we push an update, we don't want it to crash, of course, and we want to be sure that we are up in the security game. This is one of the main reasons I'm here, as everything security-related is quite important to us. We mostly have on-premises devices and our own data centers, so it's crucial that the tools we buy are reliable.

I find Cisco Secure Firewall to be pretty easy to scale, and I was in a meeting this week with Cisco insiders who said it's going to be even easier in the future.

They're going to provide us with AI now for Cisco Secure Firewall, and we will just be able to chat while everything does itself.

Regarding customer support, I had a meeting yesterday with them for Cisco Secure Firewall. We are a very large company, so we open TAC cases quite often because we have more than 200 people working in security at my company. We find problems all the time, and most of the time it's quite responsive. However, one of the reasons we come to Cisco Live is to meet face-to-face with the engineers and their managers to ask why a particular TAC case hasn't moved for the last couple of months, and we want answers. We're not afraid to say when it's bad, but we also recognize when it's good. We want answers. If you don't want to tell us why, tell us why you don't want to tell us why. Generally, we have a very good relationship with Cisco.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the support for Cisco Secure Firewall a nine, even if sometimes we have some bumps. I understand the effort all the support team needs to provide to reach this level. Living in Warsaw, I have seen the Krakow office grow, and I believe it's a fantastic development for Poland to have so many people there. I hope Cisco continues investing there.

I believe we were using another product before Cisco Secure Firewall, but I don't have the detailed answer. I work at digital department, where we provide all IT and IT infrastructure for the company, so it's quite a large environment with 2,000 people in the networking team globally. I don't know what everyone is doing, even if I should probably know.

Evaluating other solutions is becoming my job now, and I'm focusing on three main topics: creating the lab for the networkers at my company, evaluating the monitoring capabilities for the networkers, and looking into AI tools for our networking team. I know some of my colleagues in architecture are also evaluating tools more in detail, ranging from SD-WAN to firewall to switching. We have many solutions here in Cisco, and we are all communicating to share opinions, even if it's not our core role to have answers. It's a good thing.

This new AI functionality will definitely help our company operate more efficiently for the SOC team, especially concerning deploying different rules and rule sets. This year, when we faced problems with the geopolitical environment, our company decided to enforce policies on some countries, and instead of reviewing hundreds of thousands of IP addresses manually, we could just do five clicks to shut off a whole part of Ukraine very easily. It's a life-saver sometimes.

I think in general, Cisco Secure Firewall is a really great product, and we will just go with the flow. AI is probably something that we need to go with, but let's not implement AI everywhere for the sake of it. Let's ensure it's useful, and I believe it has its utility there as well.

I don't think there is anything competing on the market at the moment. There is nothing competing on the market, so I have given Cisco Secure Firewall an overall rating of ten. I appreciate your understanding; when I mention integers, I know that engineers will understand exactly what I'm talking about.

Concerning the pricing and licensing of Cisco Secure Firewall, that's not really my part. My focus is on the product itself — how good it is, how it competes, and how well it fits our needs. I do ask about pricing, but that ultimately goes to board management for negotiating directly with Cisco. I have an overview of the pricing, of course, and I can share with my management what the pricing is versus competitors. We often see significant disparities, but most of the time there are valid reasons with Cisco.

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.

I have been working on Cisco Secure Firewall since the ASA hardware, not the new FTDs with ASA operating system. For the FTDs, I have been working on them for approximately 10 years.

All of our deployments of Cisco Secure Firewall are currently on-premise.

The stability of the firewall and the way our customers feel about their services and service continuity are critical for our banking customers, as services are very crucial for this type of business.

Cisco Secure Firewall excels on the perimeter; however, the biggest area where you can see the difference between Cisco and other vendors is actually in the data center.

One of the main features I appreciate is the cloud management, which we have had for approximately one year. In version 7.6, we now have the AI assistant, which helps with configuration by automatically reviewing and analyzing what policies are being used and which are not. Additionally, Cisco continues to improve their firewalls with capabilities such as throughput that are becoming increasingly impressive. The same small firewall in size now comes with much greater capabilities, and the configuration deployment and changes are becoming smoother and smoother.

Cisco has something special when comparing it to other firewalls. It has a large portfolio of products that provide extensive integration capabilities and visibility. Meanwhile, other companies may have a vast portfolio, but the stability of the firewalls and how much a customer can rely on them is where Cisco stands out. Mixing these two aspects is what I consider a significant advantage.

Cisco Secure Firewall is very scalable, and I have options in deployment, especially for clustering, where I think in the latest hardware, I can deploy a cluster of six or more. Additionally, they have many sizes available, such as the 200, 3000, 4000, and 6000 series.

Two years ago, I could mention feature X as something I valued, but in every major release, Cisco always surprises me with new features. In every major release, I am surprised and receive nice new features.

Right now, I do not have anything specific in mind that I would say needs improvement, but it is actually improving constantly.

AI is indeed moving very fast. Cisco has already started to integrate and focus on AI, not just in the firewalls but in everything. However, this will need more improvement because AI is advancing quickly.

I have been in networking since 2012, which is approximately 14 years ago.

The stability and service continuity are the most important return on investment that any company or organization can get from Cisco Secure Firewall solution because losing services translates to losing money.

I can say it is just a few times we have cases on the FTDs, but I do not think that there is another vendor that can provide this reliability for the data center.

In the early days of Firepower, we had some issues; however, this has improved significantly over a couple of years. The hardware and software have become more reliable, faster, and user-friendly.

My experience with Cisco's customer service and technical support has been excellent. Since my beginning in networking, Cisco is number one in support, especially in after-sales. Even as an integrator, this advantage is significant for us as Cisco partners, and we often discuss how great Cisco support is.

I have worked on other firewalls, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet.

Deploying Cisco Secure Firewall was harder in the early days, but today it has become very easy. Cisco can support me with the necessary tools to migrate, making the process easier now.

For me, working for an integrator, it is mostly about reputation. The stability of the product gives the vendor, Cisco, and their partners a good reputation. The customer feels that this product is good, this vendor is good, and this partner is good, which extends to the technical engineer as well.

The stability and service continuity are the most important return on investment that any company or organization can get from Cisco Secure Firewall solution because losing services translates to losing money.

Taking a general look at the main competitors of Cisco, the pricing is not high and not low. It is approximately in the middle.

I have worked on other firewalls, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet.

My advice to other companies considering Cisco Secure Firewall is to give it a try. Some companies stick with a vendor, but as an integrator with some experience with Cisco insiders, I recommend giving it a try. Cisco always offers demos, including virtual firewalls. Give it a try, and you will appreciate it. I would rate my overall experience with this product as a 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 company's use case involves integration with Cisco Secure Firewall for our clients, typically for remote access VPN. The purpose of our remote access VPN integration is to connect with Duo. We also perform integration with Cisco ICE and integration directly with the firewall.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Firewall for me relates to the remote access VPN, because companies need multi-factor authentication. The selling point of the product revolves around multi-factor authentication for VPNs. I have implemented this with Cisco firewall, Cisco ICE, and Palo Alto integration with Duo.

If I could improve the product in any way to make it better for my clients, that would be beneficial. For now, everything is fine from my perspective, although there may be room for improvement that I have not yet identified.

I have been using Duo for two years.

I find Cisco Secure Firewall to be stable and scalable. It is reliable. The solution has experienced downtime.

I have worked with Cisco support. My experience with Cisco support is fine. When I need to open a case, I have done so. I did not contact Duo support, but I did contact support for Cisco firewall and Cisco ICE. I did not work with an engineer for Duo.

They are responsive. In general, it takes them two to three hours to get back to me. When they need to search for something, it may take a day.

Deploying Duo is quite simple because Duo has very good documentation for all integrations. It typically takes a couple of days to deploy because we need to schedule meetings with our clients. When we gather all the information, we can integrate it, then test it and put it in production.

I have experience with the implementation.

The benefit of using this integration for our company is that clients want solutions from us. Our clients need to find a solution for multi-factor authentication, and we recommend them to use Cisco Secure Firewall with Duo. We integrate that with their firewalls or AAA servers. Cisco Secure Firewall integrates well. I am not involved with pricing and licensing concerns, as our company has a sales team who handles that. My company is a partner. I rate this product ten out of ten.

My main use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is only as a VPN concentrator.

The only feature I find most valuable in Cisco Secure Firewall is the VPN concentrator because we use it.

The only real benefit I realize from using Cisco Secure Firewall in this use case is that it's a different vendor, so a different attack vector.

A significant drawback for Cisco Secure Firewall is the ASA software, as I have not used the Firepower software yet. The ASA software has a GUI that is extremely ugly and appears to be made in the 1980s. At 28 years old, I am not accustomed to working with something that primitive.

The update procedures do not work, and the VPN creation wizard does not work. The GUI is useless for me and frustrates me to a very high degree, which led me to switch to the CLI for configuration.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for three years.

I assess the stability and reliability of this firewall as both very good. I have had no issues with stability, as once they run, they run.

Since I am not using Cisco Secure Firewall for very heavy operations such as IPS or other intensive features, it scales quite well. We have two Firepower 1150s, and we are far under the limit of what our organization needs, so it scales well with our needs.

I have used Cisco support extensively, and I used it for this product once because during the setup there was an issue with the licensing, and I needed Cisco support to help me with the licensing for the ASA.

I am always satisfied with the level of support that I received. On a scale of 1 to 10, it is a 10 because they are reactive and effective. That is all we ask for in support.

We could accomplish this with another vendor such as Palo Alto, where we would not have to pay for licensing.

When I use the CLI, everything works quite well. I attempted to do everything with the GUI at the beginning, but nothing works. I managed to set up the HA pair with no issues once I used the CLI.

We are using quite a few other vendors for firewalls, and I do not think I can disclose which firewall we use where, but we use other major vendors such as Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point. We have a bit of everything in our portfolio.

If it was my choice, I would have put another firewall there with something easier to configure, more straightforward, and a cleaner interface to maintain it.

My honest advice for someone who is evaluating Cisco Secure Firewall based on my experience would be that if you can get something else, go for something else. If you are going to use it, then use the CLI because the GUI is not usable. If I had the choice, I would not be using Cisco Firepower or ASA on top of it because in my opinion and the opinion of my colleagues and my management, it is not the best device for the role it is playing.

My overall rating for Cisco Secure Firewall is 5 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.