We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"This solution comes with comprehensive technical support."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of central management."
"So far, the feature that I like best is the policy configuration manager."
"The deployment is quite simple and straightforward."
"Installation is easy."
"There is minimum blind space in this solution."
"The first part that we like is that we can reuse certain hardware, which is a valuable asset. You can use hardware SKUs that already exist in the network. The second part that we like is the integration with the cloud and the measurement of the cloud's quality. These are the two values that this solution gives as compared to other implementations that we have seen."
"I like the feature that lets you transfer from old devices to new devices without changing the hardware and subscription."
"Forcepoint is a complete package because it has network and systems applications. Other firewalls are only for the network."
"The support is great. They also have very good categorization. It's very good. It captures a lot of threats."
"Technical support has been quite helpful in the past."
"Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is very simple, easy to use, and flexible."
"The most valuable feature is the console management."
"I don't have anything bad to say about the product. I absolutely love it."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support."
"It is a scalable product. I know a customer who has deployed more than 4,000 firewalls in a single deployment."
"It would be very helpful if we had better access to a knowledge base, or online documentation, to help both us and our customers learn to use this solution."
"The initial setup could be a bit less complex."
"Cisco's router and voice gateway has not been available since the launch of SD-WAN."
"One of the major areas that Cisco can improve on with their SD-WAN offering is their security features. When compared with Fortinet, who have what they call their 'security pillars' (e.g. firewall and security features built-in to their SD-WAN solutions), Cisco generally comes up short. With Cisco, if you need a security component, you have to pay more to get it done. So if they could add more security features that come part and parcel with their existing solutions, then I think Cisco could be very aggressive in the market."
"I would like them to add some more SD-WAN ports. We have seen one implementation where there were four ISPs. Currently, we have a maximum of two ports for ISP in this device. Therefore, we cannot connect directly, and we need other switches. There should be some option to have more than two ports for SD-WAN."
"The bandwidth limitations would be good to remove, but it is a policy and license situation for Cisco because the cost is very high. It would be good to have OTP implemented with VRF. It can have support for EIGRP Over the Top (OTP) VRF. I saw some limitations in regards to the VRF protocol and the advertisement between VRF configuration. EIGRP Over the Top basically was quite limited with the VRF configuration. If you wanted to do rollback in VRF by using the EIGRP OTP protocol, the formation was not populated across. Cisco got back and confirmed that it is a configuration that I need to wait for until the next release, which is going to happen in one year. Cisco documentation is not the way it used to be before. It just gives an easy way to configure, but it doesn't go into the details of the configuration. The information that you need is there, but sometimes you want to go further and get more information, but the information is quite limited. It would be good to cover a few business cases or configuration cases. They used to be there in the past."
"Compresson deduplication should be added."
"Some competitors are much faster in providing out-of-the-box solutions, more innovative solutions. In terms of innovation, in many cases, they're lagging behind."
"They need to work on stability, it has not been the best in our experience."
"The solution needs to build upon its network functionality. It needs to be a bit smarter."
"Making this solution easier to use would be an improvement."
"They need to increase the local support here. There are also some bugs or fixes on which they need to work. They very well know about these bugs. In terms of licensing, I would like them to either increase the number of features in a single license or make licensing more flexible."
"My team is looking for more throughput and better integration with our security framework."
"The network interface could be better, and it could be cheaper."
"The security features need to be improved."
"Forcepoint is a little difficult to configure compared to its competitors."
"The license model is too complex with too many flavors and options. You might not be able to see it from an end user's point of view, but from a telco point of view, their license model is too complex. They should have a flexible license model. If you want to have good pricing, you need to buy it for a two-year, four-year, or five-year license immediately. Some other vendors have much more flexible license models."
"The costs are a bit on the high side."
"Cisco is more expensive than FortiGate."
"The pricing of this solution is very expensive."
"The price is high."
"You have to pay between 3000 and 10,000 euros, or something in that range. The core switches Nexus cost me between 10,000 and 20,000 euros."
"We pay for the Cisco Customer Care support, which is a couple of hundred dollars."
"It's expensive. If you compare Cisco with Fortinet and Juniper, you'll find that Cisco is more expensive than other vendors."
"Forcepoint is very expensive but it's really secure."
"It could be cheaper like Fortinet."
"We would love to take other solution from Forcepoint, but unfortunately the price is too high. That's why we are not considering using Forcepoing for our proxy and DLB. They have a very good DLB, but the matter in the end is the cost."
"The pricing should be more competitive against other vendors in the market."
"I consider Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall's price to be good."
"We have just a subscription for the cloud, and this license is great. The license is so good."
"Everything in Forcepoint comes with an individual license, which is kind of a problem. In our last meeting, they said that it may change at the beginning of 2021, and they will try to merge some licenses together. Customers will get more features than what they got previously. We will wait and see."
"The training that they offer to their end-customers. It's quite expensive, I believe it costs roughly $11,000"
Deploy software-defined WAN without compromising the application experience.
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 2nd in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 41 reviews while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 5th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 19 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "Stable, cutting-edge, and robust". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Good console management, but the interface is not user-friendly and application filtering needs finer granularity". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, VMware SD-WAN, Versa FlexVNF, Meraki SD-WAN and Citrix SD-WAN, whereas Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention, Darktrace, pfSense and Cisco ASA Firewall. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall report.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.