FireMon vs. ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
FireMon
Score 7.9 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
FireMon is a real-time security policy management solution built for today’s complex multi-vendor, enterprise environments. Supporting the latest firewall and policy enforcement technologies spanning on-premises networks to the cloud, FireMon delivers visibility and control across the entire IT landscape to automate policy changes, meet compliance standards, to minimize policy-related risk. Since creating their policy management solution in 2004, FireMon states they've helped…N/A
ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
ManageEngine offers Firewall Analyzer, a firewall security and policy management option supporting change and compliance of network security devices.N/A
Pricing
FireMonManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
FireMonManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalOptional
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
FireMonManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Considered Both Products
FireMon
Chose FireMon
FireMon gives us more flexibility when deploying the solution. Integrates with cutting-edge security solutions
Chose FireMon
We have only used firemon and there hasn't been a need to consider other products as we are satisfied with what Firemon can do.
Chose FireMon
Firewall Rule analyzer was used before I joined the company, but I have no experience with it.
Chose FireMon
OSSEC is open source and FM is much better from GUI and supportability stand points. Tufin and FireMon are very comparable
Chose FireMon
Best Compliance and Auditing tool to to identify the traffic that is hitting this rule.
Chose FireMon
I was not involved on the decision but having multiple brands in the company make sense to use a tool such as Firemon because it integrates easily with multiple vendors.
Chose FireMon
Infoblox DDI (BloxOne), Palo Alto Networks Prisma Cloud, Palo Alto Panorama, Palo Alto Networks Threat Protection, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls - PA Series and Fortinet FortiGate
Chose FireMon
Algosec and Tufin both are good tools but the cost involved for what they offer as services led us to go with Firemon.
Chose FireMon
i was not involved in the selection however i am quite happy with FireMon as the replacement of our aging product.
Chose FireMon
We have stuck with FireMon, and there is no reason to leave.
Chose FireMon
The Dell product ran on its own hardware, which failed often. The reports were not available to us in real-time, we had to request them. Many false detections of issues.
Chose FireMon
Both perform admirably with regards to providing that single pane of glass and visibility in a normalized view. They both provide great insight into where your organization stands in terms of compliance controls. In terms of upgrading and scalability, I would have to give the …
Chose FireMon
I has worked with Algosec and while they are very similar product, I find the FireMon is easier to understand and get rolling with. While both require some learning, FireMon is by far the easier one. Once you have an understanding of how things are arranged and labeled you can …
Chose FireMon
FireMon has the most supported devices.
The UI is easy to use and intuitive.
There is a comprehensive list of built in compliance controls that are missing in the competition.
Chose FireMon
To be blunt, at the time of purchase most of these products appeared to do the same things in the same ways. What really brought us to the table with FireMon six years ago was their willingness to earn our business, and to this day they remain just as committed to keeping our …
Chose FireMon
FireMon is way more flexible and the interface is tremendously better than any existing ones.
Chose FireMon
Algosec is a great tool, lower in cost as well.

FireMon has alot of capabilites, but our organization is not ready or have a use case yet for those features.
Chose FireMon
Tufin works much better with CheckPoint.
Chose FireMon
They are two very well done tools, FireMon is better suited for firewall rules evaluation, configuration and review, Tenable.io is better suited for CIS benchmarking. We ended up using both of them in the end, it really depends of your needs and what you are looking for, the …
Chose FireMon
Nothing like FireMon. We have other tools but 99% of them are looking at specific areas and not the enterprise security on a dashboard.
Chose FireMon
We performed a head-to-head PoC between FireMon and AlgoSec several years ago. Both platforms were well developed, but FireMon had the upper hand in three areas:
  1. Its UI was more unified and intuitive across the different components and products
  2. The reporting was better suited …
Chose FireMon
AlgoSec and Tufin both have initial issues during the POC stage, and FireMon even though with the changes they have made still works better and is more user friendly.
ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Chose ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer was already chosen before I inherited the environment, but I have been very happy with the product.
Chose ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
You’ll be able to discover new devices as well as manage via a single interface. For a network person that may be less experienced with tech setups, this is a handy feature to have. This can be a great option for protection, particularly if you already have other elements of …
Chose ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
ManageEngine was chosen over the use of AlgoSec as it slotted nicely with other Manage engine services we use for services such as active directory management. Other benefits include how lightweight and easy to install and set up it is. You can install it inside your network …
Chose ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Product feel, support, promising functionality and cost
Chose ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
We selected ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer because it is a mature and complex firewall solution. The implementation is easy, and the licensing price is very good. The support from the vendor is also excellent. It is a solid solution to configure and monitor traffic and assure …
Chose ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
We used to use the built-in functionality of our Cisco ASA firewalls, and it was so complex as to be practically useless. There was no good way to find useful data without some kind of analyzer. We briefly tried Kiwi Syslog Server, but it wasn't much better, mostly just showing …
Chose ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Good cost/benefit ratio. We didn’t want to pay much, we are a small company but, and the same time we wanted to have paid support to fastly solve problems.
Features
FireMonManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Firewall Security Management
Comparison of Firewall Security Management features of Product A and Product B
FireMon
-
Ratings
ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
7.6
Ratings
8% below category average
Policy planning and rule management00 Ratings8.40 Ratings
Automated Policy Orchestration00 Ratings6.40 Ratings
Device Discovery00 Ratings8.70 Ratings
Policy Compliance Auditing00 Ratings7.40 Ratings
Attack Path Simulation Testing00 Ratings4.50 Ratings
Anomalous Event or Behavior Deviation00 Ratings9.10 Ratings
Vulnerability Scans00 Ratings8.40 Ratings
Firewall Rule Cleanup00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
FireMonManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Small Businesses
NinjaOne
NinjaOne
Score 9.0 out of 10

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
Cisco Meraki MX
Cisco Meraki MX
Score 9.1 out of 10
Palo Alto Panorama
Palo Alto Panorama
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Cisco Meraki MX
Cisco Meraki MX
Score 9.1 out of 10
ServiceNow IT Operations Management
ServiceNow IT Operations Management
Score 9.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
FireMonManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Likelihood to Recommend
7.9
(0 ratings)
8.4
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
6.8
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.3
(0 ratings)
8.4
(0 ratings)
Availability
7.3
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.7
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
7.9
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
FireMonManageEngine Firewall Analyzer
Likelihood to Recommend
FireMon is best used in a large environment (for example, I have >100
firewalls in my environment). It's best used when trying to improve
security posture and showing changes in firewall security over time. It
might not be the best choice for smaller environments or those that aren't concerned about security management.
Read full review
We rely on the application to monitor the bandwidth to know user behavior. It makes the process of keeping your system and information safe super simple and streamlined. It supports multiple firewalls that include Check Point, Cisco, Cyberoam, Fortinet, Sense, Juniper, Huawei, Sophos, and WatchGuard. It helps us to gain insight into security threats and traffic.
Read full review
Pros
  • PCI Reporting - After identifying which firewalls and rulesets are in scope, producing a report artifact to satisfy PCI requirements on Firewall reviews is literally a two-click operation.
  • Storing Rule Metadata - FireMon stores metadata (prefilled fields, standard fields, and custom fields) for each rule in each policy which is valuable for context during firewall reviews in particular
  • API - FireMon exposes most if not all of its functionality via REST API
Read full review
  • Allowed upper management to track VPN usage when employees were not on site and working.
  • Gave me real time monitoring of internet usage
  • alerted me to potential problems
  • Allowed me to track web usage real time
Read full review
Cons
  • Some features could be added to the existing functionality which include NAT rules usage
  • Rule expiration normalization from firewalls rather than entering them in rule documentation
  • .csv exports of the files from the firewall pane only gives usage for 30 days by default and that should be increased
Read full review
  • UI can be improved, not very intuitive.
  • Search features can be improved too, I needed to export an excel file to perform an advanced search.
  • Automatic direct updates would be great.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Once all the customization has been completed, the business is starting to see the return on investment. The visibility it provides into the network gear that is owned by other IT groups is immeasurable and has allowed us to apply standards across the board. The only thing I have concern with is their support documentation.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
It save me time and I'm able to have the review - review the rule independently with using my time.
Read full review
It is fast to
download the test software and implement. It takes some sometime to understand the
ways you have to on board your firewalls into it. It is nice to buy and just
activate the product that you have already installed. Maybe some wizards could
be improved in order to accelerate these tasks.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
FireMon has been relatively stable overall. However, there have been a handful of times where we had issues with the console. For example, we couldn't update which devices to include in a security assessment. The initial suggestion from support was to just reboot it. It seems like there weren't many other options available such as to restart services before going to the extreme of a complete reboot.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
I'm not sure we have the largest implementation of FireMon out there but we do have a few 1000 devices being probed by FireMon. Overall, the system's performance has been rock solid. The console refreshes quickly and reports are generated within an expected timeframe.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
FireMon technical support is awesome! They respond quickly to our requests and they are well trained and very knowledgeable about the tool. Some issues have to be referred to the development team, but technical support largely provides solutions for any issues that we may have.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
Implementation is fairly simple. Most issues can be resolved by referencing manuals.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
I has worked with AlgoSec and while they are very similar product, I find the FireMon is easier to understand and get rolling with. While both require some learning, FireMon is by far the easier one. Once you have an understanding of how things are arranged and labeled you can easily import firewalls and begin to work on them to improve them
Read full review
You’ll be able to discover new devices as well as manage via a single interface. For a network person that may be less experienced with tech setups, this is a handy feature to have. This can be a great option for protection, particularly if you already have other elements of the UniFi system installed.
Read full review
Scalability
Firemon Is easily scalable and maintainable with any size team. Although it requires some tech debt, it is well worth the time to invest to ensure compliance is visible and reports are accurate. Although our environment is very large we do not fully utilize the scalability of the Firemon product.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
  • It helps us save us time in determining what change was made and by whom.
  • Real time alerting is a great convenience in helping us know if something went wrong, we can immediately review the last report to determine what has changed.
  • Allows us to determine what rules are not used and if said rules are still required.
Read full review
  • Firewall Analyzer has definitely freed up a lot of IT's time, by congregating logs and displaying them in a more useful, visual way.
  • The cost for licenses and proactive alerting, compared to the man-hours spent reactively through data, paid for itself in a few months.
  • There was no negative impact to users, and only some to IT staff who had to train on the software, which mostly consisted of videos and playing around with the software.
Read full review
ScreenShots