Possessing a firewall alone does not ensure security. Its effectiveness depends on how well it is matched to the network architecture, the scale of the environment, and the organization’s operating model. NGFW is today the first line of defense, combining traffic control, application inspection, VPN, segmentation, and support for requirements such as NIS2 or ISO 27001.

The most common reason for replacing a firewall is the end of vendor support, but also traffic growth, the need for SSL inspection, or changes in architecture. The choice of a solution should result from an analysis of real needs, not the brand. Fortinet and Palo Alto address different scenarios, and virtual firewalls increasingly complement physical deployments in the cloud. A good firewall is one that truly fits your infrastructure.

“I need a firewall” – this is a sentence that every cybersecurity engineer hears at least a few times a month. Meanwhile, it is the selection of the right solution that determines the effectiveness of protection, not the mere fact of having a firewall.

Different requirements apply to a distributed environment with multiple locations, different ones to an organization operating fully in the cloud, and yet different ones to a company operating in a hybrid model with heavy remote traffic. The choice of a firewall should always be preceded by an analysis of the network architecture, development plans, the type of protected assets, and the expected level of control. In this article, we will show how to approach this choice consciously.

NGFW as the First Line of Defense

Next Generation Firewall (NGFW) now serves as the primary control point—both at the perimeter between the internal network and the internet, and between internal network segments. NGFW goes far beyond simple filtering based on IP addresses and ports. Its capabilities also include:

• application-level inspection (traffic recognition at OSI Layer 7),
• network traffic control,
• content scanning and threat detection in encrypted traffic (SSL/TLS Decryption),
• enforcement of policy-based security rules (Security Policies),
• VPN support (including IPsec and SSL),
• network segmentation capabilities (including microsegmentation),
• integration with other components of the security ecosystem (EDR, SIEM, XDR, ZTNA).

Proper firewall selection directly impacts the level of protection and compliance with applicable regulations. This is particularly important in the context of requirements such as NIS2, GDPR, and ISO/IEC 27001 standards. Thanks to logging, reporting, and documenting network activities, a firewall also supports the organization in compliance and audit processes.

How to recognize when your old firewall is no longer sufficient?

Firewall replacement rarely results from a specific incident—it is far more often driven by internal changes, business growth, or the end of the device lifecycle. In practice, however, the most common and critical signal that the current solution is no longer sufficient is the approaching end of vendor support (EoL/EoS – End of Life / End of Support). Every NGFW device, regardless of vendor, is covered by a defined support period.

After support ends, the vendor no longer releases security updates or vulnerability patches. If a new vulnerability is discovered at that point, organizations using unsupported devices will not receive adequate protection.

From an audit or incident-response perspective, this represents a direct breach of IT responsibilities and exposes the organization to liability—not only operational, but also legal. That is why IT and security teams should proactively monitor device lifecycles and maintain a migration plan for NGFW infrastructure. In many organizations, this process begins as early as 12–18 months before the official EoS date.

Delaying hardware replacement may lead to situations where:

• the vendor no longer guarantees availability of new models,
• there is a lack of compatibility with supported management platforms (e.g. Panorama, FortiManager),
• the solution no longer meets compliance and certification requirements (e.g. ISO 27001, NIS2).

End of support is not the only signal, however. Other reasons for firewall replacement include:

• insufficient device performance (due to growth in user count or traffic volume),
• the need to enable SSL inspection, which significantly burdens older models,
• the introduction of segmentation, microsegmentation, or a new network architecture that cannot be implemented on the existing platform,
• deployment of additional security services requiring greater computing power (e.g. Threat Intelligence, sandboxing, DLP).

In regulated environments such as financial services or healthcare, regular NGFW hardware rotation is standard practice. Organizations that fail to do so expose themselves to operational risk and compliance-related sanctions.

How to choose the ideal NGFW?

Selecting a Next Generation Firewall cannot be a random decision or one based solely on vendor brand. Every IT environment has unique operational requirements, traffic patterns, risk levels, and budget constraints. That is why the selection process should always begin with a thorough analysis of the organization’s business needs.

In practice, this means individual consultations with a solution integrator, during which engineers review the current infrastructure, development plans, network traffic volume, remote access architecture, expectations around visibility and security policies, and the level of integration with other systems (EDR, SIEM, public cloud).

When evaluating NGFW parameters, the following aspects are typically considered:

• device throughput with full inspection enabled (Threat Prevention / SSL Decryption),
• number of concurrent sessions and connections,
• number and type of network interfaces (including 10/25/40G support),
• high availability (HA) clustering capabilities,
• compliance with regulatory requirements (e.g. NIS2, ISO/IEC 27001, PCI-DSS),
• availability of technical support, licensing, and post-sales services.

Additionally, the nature of network traffic is assessed—for example, the number of users is often less important than which applications they use, what types of data they process, and their overall usage profile.

Critical importance is also placed on whether the organization plans to enable SSL decryption—a feature that places significant load on the device. Nominal throughput values provided by vendors can drop by as much as 3–4 times, which may result in performance issues and instability if the firewall is improperly sized.

Increasingly, the preferences and experience of the IT team with a given vendor are also taken into account. A well-chosen firewall is not just hardware that meets requirements—it is also technology the team knows how to operate effectively.

Fortinet or Palo Alto? Selection criteria

Choosing a firewall vendor is one of the key moments in the entire network security design process. Both Fortinet (FortiGate) and Palo Alto Networks offer extensive NGFW portfolios. However, their architectures, licensing models, product ecosystems, and operational philosophies differ significantly.

From the customer’s perspective, the decision usually depends on several recurring factors:

1. Budget and cost-effectiveness

FortiGate is generally perceived as a more cost-effective solution with a strong price-to-performance ratio. Palo Alto, on the other hand, is often chosen by organizations with larger budgets that prioritize integration with cloud products and analytics platforms within the same vendor ecosystem.

2. Technical and architectural requirements

Some organizations require a comprehensive infrastructure stack—firewall, switches, access points, NAC systems—managed centrally. In such cases, Fortinet offers greater cohesion and automation, for example through FortiSwitches and FortiAPs managed directly from the NGFW. Palo Alto, in contrast, focuses on integration with Cortex, Panorama, and cloud services, making it a strong choice for hybrid and SaaS-driven environments.

3. Environment complexity and scalability

For large organizations such as banks, government institutions, and critical infrastructure operators, scalability, clustering, and enterprise-grade support are essential. In practice, this often means choosing enterprise-class solutions such as Palo Alto Networks firewalls, which provide advanced traffic inspection, identity-based policy management, centralized administration, and deep integration with other security systems. It is important to emphasize, however, that the final choice should always be based on analysis of the existing architecture and future growth plans.

A new approach to security – why consider a cloud firewall?

A common question today is: “Will a cloud firewall replace a traditional physical device?” The answer is no. Virtual and physical firewalls are not competitors—they complement each other. Both have a place in a modern security architecture, but they protect different areas.

For branch offices, data centers, and corporate headquarters, a physical device remains the best solution. It provides local control, integrates with switches and access points, enables segmentation, and enforces per-VLAN policies. Most importantly, it operates close to the user with minimal latency.

When an organization deploys applications in the cloud—such as Azure or AWS—the situation changes. You cannot ship a physical appliance to Microsoft’s data center. This is where a virtual NGFW comes into play—it operates exactly like a traditional firewall, with the same interface, one-to-one policy portability, and consistent configuration structure.

Virtual firewalls are particularly effective for protecting development environments, SaaS applications, publicly exposed APIs, and microservices components. They can be deployed quickly, scaled easily, and launched in new cloud regions without logistics, hardware, or additional overhead.

That said, limitations must be understood. Virtual firewall performance will never match that of physical appliances—latency is higher, throughput is lower, and the operational cost model is different. For this reason, they are not recommended for local branches or environments where high reliability and large data volumes are critical.

A good firewall is one that fits your infrastructure

Choosing the right firewall is not about selecting a “better” or “worse” product. It is a decision driven by specific conditions: network structure, growth plans, protected assets, and the organization’s operating model. In my experience, no two deployments are ever the same.

That is why every firewall decision—whether FortiGate, Palo Alto, physical, or virtual—should be preceded by discussion and analysis of real needs. Only then does the investment make sense. If you are planning to replace your current NGFW, want to validate your assumptions, or simply discuss what will work best in your environment—contact us.

This article was prepared by a 4Prime expert and subsequently edited with the support of artificial intelligence tools.