Recent NSS Labs testing found that Palo Alto’s PA-5220 firewall was more cost-efficient than Cisco’s, at a total cost of ownership (TCO) per protected Mbps of $7 compared to $28 for the Cisco Firepower 4120. Palo Alto is a good fit when performance and advanced features are more heavily weighted than price. Cisco is a particularly good fit for companies seeking a broad range of security services that integrate with the firewall, and customers give the company strong marks for support. The Bottom LineĬisco and Palo Alto both get high marks from customers and industry analysts, but there are important differences between the two. Each solution has distinct strengths and weaknesses, however – what follows is a look at each offering’s key features, as well as the differences between them. Cisco’s and Palo Alto Networks’ next-generation firewalls (NGFWs) both appear on eSecurity Planet’s list of the top 10 NGFW vendors, and both are well qualified to meet enterprise security demands.

Palo alto networks panorama