We performed a comparison between Cisco SD-WAN and Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cisco SD-WAN's collaborative features are unique and sustainable. I also like the protocols, which use two SD-WAN."
"I like the feature that lets you transfer from old devices to new devices without changing the hardware and subscription."
"The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN include the DIA and its integration with Cisco Umbrella for DNS security."
"We would recommend this solution to customers looking to implement it on a global scale. We recommend the solution, not only because of the functionality or the technical support, but also because of the delivery of the solution, and the docking and upgrading capabilities."
"The product's brand recognition is one of the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"When we have had power outages for a few hours we have had no issue with Cisco SD-WAN coming back online and functioning."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"The most valuable features, application awareness, and failover resilience, stand out as key considerations for users."
"Technical support has been quite helpful in the past."
"They offer templates that provide detailed reports categorized by user, device, and internal network access."
"When comparing this solution to others this one has better reporting, user management, and is easy to use."
"The feature that we like the most about Forcepoint is that we know the technology and have confidence in it. We can have several functionalities to simplify operations and management. We can combine functionalities like log ownership to review the number of devices in the infrastructure."
"I like the Firewall and the IPS."
"The solution offers sandboxing, which can be integrated at any time."
"I have found that Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is easy to use, highly secure, and the main VPN tunnel is created automatically which is a benefit."
"The support is great. They also have very good categorization. It's very good. It captures a lot of threats."
"One area for improvement in Cisco SD-WAN is reporting. The report needs to give more visibility to the customer. The security feature in Cisco SD-WAN also needs improvement, particularly if Cisco wants to challenge other brands, such as Fortinet."
"Since most user-data is going through the solution, we are concerned about security, as all the information is in the cloud and not on-premises. The user data authentification should be higher to better prevent malicious attacks."
"The UI has room for improvement."
"The main issue is that not in the technology, but it comes back comparison. When we do a comparison with other SD WAN solutions, they are priced better."
"We recently found some bugs."
"We had some issues with Cisco SD-WAN but somehow we troubleshot it and things are going well. The issues have not been a large problem."
"The solution could be a bit cheaper."
"Its license model needs to be improved. They always make the license model too complex. There are too many license models and too many options. They should have a flexible license model. They can improve a lot of things in terms of scalability, templates, and automation, mainly automation for onboarding a number of sites. If you want some new features, it can take quite a long time. If you want a feature and it is not yet developed, you need to have the support of the business units to have the feature developed. If the feature is not on their roadmap, it can take quite some time before you get the feature."
"The solution needs to build upon its network functionality. It needs to be a bit smarter."
"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."
"We feel the product's technical support could be better, as this relates to the solution itself, to the installation of the product, and to having a proper understanding of the case."
"They should have a local vendor who can provide support. Most of the support is overseas, so the time zones can be a problem."
"This solution would be improved with the inclusion of custom reporting."
"Something that I've noticed that Forcepoint lacks, is the training that they offer to their end-customers"
"The endpoint protection capabilities of the product are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall could change its interface, allowing standard or direct connect modes to be configured."
More Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 1st in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 86 reviews while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is ranked 10th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 40 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "A solution for integrating services to enhance up-time, performance and lower costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall writes "Provides decent protection for the LAN but complicated interface". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, VMware SD-WAN, Juniper Session Smart Router and Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform, whereas Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention, Check Point NGFW, Cisco Secure Firewall and Trellix Intrusion Prevention System. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
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.
