The Cisco Firepower 4100 Series’ 1-rack-unit size is presented by the vendodr as ideal at the Internet edge and in high-performance environments. They further state that it shows what’s happening on your network, detects attacks earlier so you can act faster, and reduces management complexity.
N/A
Juniper SRX
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Juniper SRX is a firewall offering. It provides a variety of modular features, scaled for enterprise-level use, based on a 3-in-1 OS that enables routing, switching, and security in each product.
We switch to Palo Alto due the amount of tickets open with Cisco Firepower 4100 Series. It was taking a great amount of time for our engineers to fix problems. But it was a great tool when it was working as we were expecting. The fact it has a lot of instability on the releases …
We previously use Cisco ASA 5500 series but due to those devices are a little old, we changed to Cisco Firepower 4100 Series as more recent product from Cisco. One of the reasons to select Cisco Firepower 4100 Series was the configuration migration availability from ASA to …
As I mentioned before, the Fortigates have better failover. I think the Cisco interface is easier to use that that of the Fortigate. My only criticism would be that with multiple CLIs, it can get a bit confusing when you are trying to configure something or troubleshoot from …
Cisco Firepower 4100 Series deployment is straightforward and easy to implement. It is also can support high availability and able to achieve redundancy. Besides, firmware upgrade is quite simple and the process does not take much effort as the upgrade will be automatically …
Juniper SRX stands tall compared to all these products for Large Service Provider Networks, where traffic volume is larger. Also, cost comparison with SRX's few other products can also be another contributing factor while selecting this. As well as Juniper Routers, Switches, …
The comparison between the different firewalls is really down to preference and price at this point. The SRX is a solid device, and we have not seen a hardware failure to date. The Juniper support I have had is stellar and has helped me out with larger more complex scenario …
Equipment prices ran about the same. Performance and management were also more or less equal. The biggest deciding factors for going with Juniper were (1) fewer security incidents related to SRX firewalls and (2) technical support costs were significantly less.
Juniper SRX is significantly better in every category.
Cisco ASA was terrible. The config is unintuitive and not easy to manage. Cisco left the ASA abandoned from any kind of meaningful software updates for around a decade.
I love the Cisco ASA but I've become used to the SRX. I am a CLI kind of guy so the SRX works for me. Others may be more GUI based so the ASA may be more comfortable to you. If that's the case then the ASA's ASDM is a solid platform to manage your FW. Junos hasn't gotten this …
The SRX Stacks up well to the ASA and Sonic wall but I feel the features provided by Fortigate/Palo Alto and Checkpoint far exceed that of the competitors.
When we are asked by local partners which security equipment we use we always recommend our Cisco security products. The Firepower firewall is no exception and we can easily recommend this to others who need a fast, secure, and well built system that integrates well with all your existing hardware and software.
Juniper vSRX is an excellent edge gateway device. The combination of Tunneling protocols supported and the advanced routing & security features makes it perfect for this kind of deployment. It is available in physical, virtual appliances as well as support on multiple clouds so you can have the same box be your edge gateway in multiple environments for consistency.
It can also work as a Internet Gateway, DMZ Firewall/Router and it would function just fine.
While it can also work as a DC firewall (North-South), the poor GUI will make it harder in the day to day administration for the multiple policies in a DC.
Policy management in the GUI. I'm old-school, and still create ACLs in the CLI, but using the GUI for this is very nice.
Event monitoring and reporting is great, and you can get very granular when it comes to what information you are viewing.
I really like the troubleshooting features that are built in, especially the packet tracer and the ability to generate and download a troubleshooting package to review or send to TAC.
It not easy to understand the different features it offers. Sometimes you need to spend a couple of minutes to implement a change or even open a ticket with cisco tac to figure it out. Once support is on the phone with you they know how to resolve problems. But it's not an intuitive tool
This is the one area where I have a beef with Juniper. When I called into Cisco TAC, 90% of the time, the first person I spoke with was able to resolve my issue. With Juniper TAC, 90% of the time, the first person I speak with is not able to resolve my issue, seems to almost be reading from a script, and must escalate my ticket. All of which takes time.
We switch to Palo Alto due the amount of tickets open with Cisco Firepower 4100 Series. It was taking a great amount of time for our engineers to fix problems. But it was a great tool when it was working as we were expecting. The fact it has a lot of instability on the releases was the deciding factor.
Equipment prices ran about the same. Performance and management were also more or less equal. The biggest deciding factors for going with Juniper were (1) fewer security incidents related to SRX firewalls and (2) technical support costs were significantly less.
It is a workhorse for our field operations. It provides the last touch for an ISP to the customer. The customer has no view of the device, but with the repeatability of the device, they do not need to.
The ability to roll out a dynamic routing protocol attached to a security zone allows elasticity to the environment that supports growth.
VLAN support on the inside interfaces allow this to be the only device in some smaller deployments we install these in.