We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security and OPNsense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are that it is very simple to configure and to manage."
"The user interface (UI) is very, very good."
"Its user interface is good, and it is always working fine."
"The base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"The most valuable feature is the web filter."
"We use the filtering feature the most. It has filtering and inbuilt securities. We can create customized rules to define which users can access a particular type of site. We can create policies inside the firewall."
"The GUI is good."
"It's very easy to configure."
"In Pakistan, we only use Cisco because they have good local support infrastructure. Huawei and Fortinet don't offer direct support in Pakistan."
"Technical support for this solution is very good."
"Completely integrates branch offices with perimeter security."
"The technical support is good."
"Cisco Technical Assistance Center works on a follow-the-sun concept and gives real 24x7 customer support, which is a great advantage when you have a service contract with them."
"What I have used the most and received the most benefit from is the IPsec technology."
"The most valuable features are DNS service and shell self-service within a network."
"Cisco IOS Security is very robust and works very well."
"We have been operating here in our lab for several months, and everything appears to be extremely stable."
"The most valuable features of OPNsense are the GUI and frequent updates."
"The interface and the dashboard are the most valuable features of this solution."
"I have found the solution has some great features overall, such as guest access capabilities, dashboards, and ease of use. There is plenty of documentation and support and it has the plugins that I needed."
"One of the most valuable features is the network checking. Additionally, the firewall and web filtering functionalities are highly useful."
"We have found pretty much all the features of the solution to be valuable."
"It's more secure and more reliable."
"The most valuable features are reporting, the Sensei plugin, and firewall capabilities."
"The inability to scale the FortiAnalyzer to match our growth necessitates the purchase of new hardware."
"It claims it does DLP, but the degree and level of controls are very basic."
"Some features of Fortinet FortiGate are actually fee enabled that are inconvenient for deploying in production. Other issues relate to isolation with Cisco products and your server."
"Lacks sufficient security options."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"I think that the infrastructure for the VPN could be improved. The way that it is bundled also made it difficult to use and sell as it is too expensive."
"Usually, we sell the bundle with the UTM or threat management piece with IPS, IDS. Other providers, such as Palo Alto, are ahead in terms of safe functionality. So, for me, delivering truly safe service is probably something that still needs to be improved."
"I think setup could be one area for improvement, because sometimes we don't have people inside so we have to move to the place."
"The routers, don't have like long-term tendency features, or higher availability features available for the IOS. It could also use a better user interface."
"Cisco is an expensive firewall, so the pricing can be improved."
"Cisco IOS Security should improve its functionalities."
"We faced significant challenges related to licensing issues, particularly when licenses expire."
"In the security portfolio from Cisco, the issue is marketing. Cisco is still seen primarily as an enterprise network player rather than being acknowledged as a security vendor."
"I would like to see much more embedded security that works and that isn't a bolt-on."
"Sometimes I find it difficult to manage. Some configurations are difficult for new engineers, for example."
"They should improve IPEs for security in the future."
"When using the solution at the beginning was difficult. There was a steep learning curve."
"OPNsense showed me some problems when using it in different environments. The problem is integration with a virtual server."
"There are a few weaknesses. For example, there is a lack of some features that I have in certain commercial products."
"The logging could improve in OPNsense."
"While they do have paid options that actually gives better features, for most of the clients, if they tend to take a paid option will instead opt for Fortinet."
"There are issues with stability and reliability."
"An area for improvement in OPNsense is the hardware, which needs to be updated more frequently. DNS blocking is another good feature I want to be added to the solution. pfSense has a peer-blocking feature that I also want to see in OPNsense."
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 22nd in Firewalls with 47 reviews while OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while OPNsense is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OPNsense writes "Robust network security and management offering a user-friendly interface, open-source flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, with challenges regarding initial setup and the absence of official support". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiOS, Meraki MX, Netgate pfSense and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas OPNsense is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM and IPFire. See our Cisco IOS Security vs. OPNsense report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.