Cisco Secure Firewall delivers comprehensive threat protection for modern, distributed networks. Built to support hybrid workforces and multicloud environments, it enables Zero Trust access, application visibility, and secure remote connectivity. With integration across the Cisco Secure portfolio, including SecureX and Talos threat intelligence, the firewall powers organizations to detect and stop more sophisticated threats. Centralized management simplifies policy enforcement, orchestration,…
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.
N/A
Pricing
Cisco Secure Firewall
Juniper SRX
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Secure Firewall
Juniper SRX
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Cisco Secure Firewall
Juniper SRX
Considered Both Products
Cisco Secure Firewall
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Cisco Secure Firewall
on par with other firewalls vendors I've used over the years
While Cisco Secure Firewall is pricey, it delivers and does not compromise on capabilities. It is the best for network protection. Worthy every dollar.
The administraion interface of the Cisco secure firewall is a lot more easy to learn than the Palo Alto solution. Also, the dashboard panels offers by Cisco seems a lot more useful and details than the Palo Alto solution.
Having worked in the Fortinet and Sonicwall space, I have found that the Cisco Secure Firewall platform is the easiest to work with. The platform is easily customizable and overall very clean. Cisco has kept the platform feeling fresh with regular updates.
Cisco has a more seamless integration with its firewall management center compared to palo alto's panorama which tends to become out of sync with their firewalls. This can cause config differences, duplicate rules, or just the inability to deploy polices due to inconsistencies. …
They are peer competitors, with Palo Alto offering some advantages over the Cisco products in the way of licensing simplicity and costs. The Palo Alto also supports the abilty to do "to the box" filtering and policy enforcement where Cisco requires special rules that are …
I've used Ubiquiti products, SonicWall products, the various older Cisco and Meraki. Cisco is definitely more of an enterprise level and overall it has probably better overall options and integrations and functionality and we've continued to choose to use it because it works …
Cisco Secure Firewall works better with the Cisco ecosystem when we can utilize it and feels beefy enough when we utilize it in the data center. The Fortinet we have found are great, small cost boxes for remote offices with a better UI then Cisco Secure Firewalls. The feature …
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.
The software offers advanced firewall solutions from Web threats management to behavioural analytics and comprehensive application security. Cisco Secure firewall software is incredibly easy to deploy and implement. Customer support services providers are concise and very responsive. Integration and customization of the software are exceptional. The product boasts impressive capabilities, enabling it to stop threats and manage all security flaws in real time.
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.
It's good at segregating networks and ensuring that you only give the access that you need to give. Especially with medical devices, you want to only give the access that they need and keep them in their own separate areas so that they can't just communicate with the rest of the network. It's also good at the border for keeping attackers out of the network.
I have one argument, failover scenario. It's not quite easy. Failover scenario of firewalls. It's sometimes not quite easy to know the issue. But if we open a tech case, a technical case to Cisco, Cisco will help us, it's a little bit con, but we are happy with this product.
It works really well. We can do most anything we want or need to with it, and you don’t have to have a doctorate or multiple certs to necessarily figure it out. The thing that would probably have to happen to make us switch would be if we just got priced out - Cisco’s more powerful and higher bandwidth models cost a pretty penny.
The platform is powerful and feature-rich, especially when paired with tools like Firepower Management Center (FMC) and SecureX. The policy structure is logical, and the visibility into traffic flows, threat activity, and rule hits is quite strong once you're familiar with the interface
As for the availability, in general we did not experience any issues with it, neither in situations where there's only one physical device implemented nor when there's and High Availability pair. Failover works like a charm, no complaints here, it works as it should and so far it has been highly reliable.
Our experience with Cisco TAC support for Cisco Secure Firewall has been very good. The support engineers are knowledgeable about the product and have many tools available to them to work "under the hood" of the firewalls or management center. When we've had equipment failures, the RMA process has been simple and straightforward.
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.
was a good training but questions was answered not so good. Training was "Fundamentals of Cisco Firewall Threat Defense and Intrusion Prevention (SFWIPF)".
Our initial implementation was aided by Cisco's professional services and was excellent. The engineer was very knowledgeable and helped us work through issues while building out our new internet security edge Part of this involved tools to migrate the firewall configuration from old to new.
Cisco Secure Firewall works better with the Cisco ecosystem when we can utilize it and feels beefy enough when we utilize it in the data center. The Fortinet we have found are great, small cost boxes for remote offices with a better UI then Cisco Secure Firewalls. The feature set included with the firewalls feels similar from a security point of view.
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.
Cisco Secure Firewall gives details on the possible intrusions attempts that are occurring on the network, which gives stakeholders confidence that the network is being protected.
Cisco's reputation as a longstanding network leader provides the trust that is needed in keeping networks secure.
The wide variety of tools and features that Cisco Secure Firewall provides allows business owners to plan for changes that can occur in the network as Cisco is able to adapt to the different needs.
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.