Forcepoint Next-Generation Firewall delivers network security at scale. They can be deployed from anywhere through the Secure Management Console (SMC) and unify policy management, incident response and reporting.
$900
one-time fee (approx)
SonicWall TZ
Score 7.2 out of 10
N/A
SonicWall TZ is an entry to mid-tier NGFW for small to mid-sized companies. It is a Unified Threat Management solution, with additional native decryption and deep-packet inspection capabilities.
We found SonicWall TZ licencing to be far simpler than barracuda options for the use cases we needed. We have run several other barracuda products andover time have swithced away fro other offerings - mostly due to the ease of use of the GUI. We also had much better support …
SonicWall TZ is good at some things but overall I would pick Fortinet and UDM-Pro appliances most of the time and their VPN solution does not require paid license. Interface more modern and intuitive. Overall, better bang for your buck.
SonicWall TZ was a no brainer to choose over Fortigate or pfSense. We had used Fortigate units in the past and, in our experience, the interface is terrible, both on the device and the cloud side. There are constant updates that require you to jump through hoops to upgrade and …
We were using the cisco asa but there are lots of security features that are missing in these devices. SonicWall is a combination in advanced security and advanced routing. You can easy to use this firewall.
We chose the Sonicwall TZ250 because it has reliability in the Dell Sonicwall brand. It is a reliable product, with excellent support and warranty with face-to-face service should the need arise. It is cheaper than the competition, does not take up rack space, does not heat up, …
We like it is a small, portable, and has many features. I have confidence in the brand a long time. Support was also a differential to make the decision.
Pretty much similar functionality. SonicWall TZ400 compared to ASA 5506 has better hardware performance. SonicWall licenses cost less money which makes it better for the same needs and functionality. However, the Cisco ASA Internet unity and knowledge base are bigger then …
Our previous firewall, from Xyzell, couldn't handle the bandwidth that video files needed within the internal LAN, so we looked at alternatives. SonicWall came recommend by a different IT professional for its solid performance and good documentation. We further researched the …
SonicWall and WatchGuard are both fine appliances, but I am accustomed to the Barracuda NG. The Barracuda Control Center is so powerful and useful that it beats out the other two. SonicWall does a great job of dividing up firewall rules and NAT policies, but this is a …
Costs, features and ease of use were the determining factors. The UI alone outweighs the CLI from the ASA and SRX, features were easier to understand and licenses were more easily obtained.
If you are looking for a smaller network/security team, the ease and low complexity create an easy to manage environment. One engineer can easily manage 100 nodes/locations. If you are just starting to get security conscious and predict regular adjustments to policy, routing, and access, this is a very good system for making easy to understand and low impact changes on a regular basis without operations interruption.
Good price for scope of functionality Challenge for those that are not highly technical Many options within Firewall Setting that need to understood to maximize use of the device. Would be nice to see some sort of configuration wizard to assist in configuring unit.
Easy to manage and make changes on - ACL's are done with ease.
Easy USB initial configuration - The easy initial setup of a new location and firewall saves massive time. Settings are automatically pushed to new nodes upon contact with the controller.
Low Complexity - This system does not have a lot of complexity requiring extra hours, training, or personnel to manage.
Poor Reporting - It exists but even when calling in to support for assistance, they have no idea how to tackle customizing reports or searching for specific data.
management is confusing has many items that could be improved to facilitate the work to the network administrator
in the diagnostic tool I would improve the response times, that is, if a ping test is required, it should be quick, since in cases of failures it is sought to minimize the impact as much as possible.
each function has a different license item, I would place a single license package for all team functions
Overall the new interface is very logical and easy to navigate. We did struggle at first coming from the older interface and finding our way around the new. But our new users found it very simple to find what they were looking for. One negative we do all struggle with is packet cpature not always being clear how its set/what is being monitored. this could do with more information on teh intial page instead of having to look for it
Once you get to a competent technician the support experience is better. But I have found that the lower tiers of support are very slow to respond (like 1 email per day) and you typically have to re-explain yourself a couple times before they get it. I have not used Phone support, and that may be a better experience.
SonicWall and WatchGuard are both fine appliances, but I am accustomed to the Barracuda NG. The Barracuda Control Center is so powerful and useful that it beats out the other two. SonicWall does a great job of dividing up firewall rules and NAT policies, but this is a preference among engineers.
Efficiency/Productivity increase. The company moved from Cisco firewall and routing hardware to Forcepoint NGFW. It now takes fewer people and fewer hours to manage the new product. This has allowed the company to put the man-hours to use on other projects and tasks.
Long term viability. This has been a concern in the past when the company started as Stonegate, merged to become Stonesoft then got purchased by McAfee, then McAfee got purchased by Intel. However, with Forcepoint the product seems to have found a stable home.
Low complexity. The Web GUI based system for management has reduced the cost of personnel and training required. There is no longer a need for the company to have higher trained and higher salary cost employees to manage the system. Mid-level admins at lower salaries are capable of managing the GUI based system with ease.