An In-Depth Comparison
Here’s a quick overview of both of these tools:
- Next-Generation Firewall – NGFWs are an extension of the firewall: they examine the context around data packets that are flowing into and out of an organization or network via Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). This allows administrators to put allow policies around the traffic they trust.
- Unified Threat Management – UTM tools are consolidated platforms that offer organizations a complete suite of anti-virus, URL filtering, and Intrusion Detection Prevention (IDP) tools.
Unified Threat Management was the first wave of cybersecurity that brought all defense points into a single, cohesive solution. Next-Gen Firewalls sought a slightly different approach…
Instead of collating all individual security tools into a central system, they aim to reduce the number of network security tools required by expanding the capabilities of the traditional, stateless firewall. To address their differences, let’s delve into the individual fields in which NGFW differs from UTM platforms.
Protective Scope
NGFWs and UTM solutions offer vastly different scopes through which to view protection. While the former provides in-depth, application and network-layer analysis, the latter provides a more shallow pool of intel that aims to reach across an organization’s entire surface.
UTM takes basic firewall capabilities and combines it with the broader security functions of antivirus and Virtual Private Network (VPN) capabilities, integrating multiple security functions into a single device.
NGFWs, on the other hand, take the stateless firewall’s ability to assess traffic coming in and out of a protected network, and kick its analytical potential up a notch. Traditional firewalls are able to assess the contents of data packets up to OSI layer four. This includes:
- The Device type
- The protocol the packet’s being sent through
- Where it’s going.
However, anything outside of that, the firewall is blind to.
This is where a NGFW exceeds UTM firewall performance, as they’re able to assess everything up to OSI layer 7 – the application layer. This means admins can block packets from unauthorized applications, while allowing otherwise-encrypted VPN traffic to be inspected and secured.
Anwendungsfälle
Given the different capabilities of the two approaches, it’s common to see UTM deployed in organizations that have incredibly lean cybersecurity teams. Small organizations that may want something in place that will offer bare-bones, one-stop-shop protection, are a great example of this.
However, as organizations grow and respond to:
- The growing risk profile of more employees
- Larger databases
- More complex network layouts
…they often find themselves chafing against the confines of single platforms.
This is why NGFWs are often deployed by medium and large companies with the horsepower to dedicate security professionals to individual tasks. The deep, customizable security features make NGFWs suitable for enterprises with critical data, high traffic volume, and the need for specialized network security.
Complexity
UTM platforms are designed with simplicity in mind. The central management console of a UTM is user-friendly, allowing non-technical users to configure basic settings. This makes UTMs more approachable for SMBs or organizations that don’t have dedicated security personnel.
From a user perspective, it may be necessary to log in via a Secure Web Gateway. The simplicity, however, comes at the expense of fine-tuned control and advanced security features.
NGFWs are generally more complex, offering:
- In-depth and contextual security policies
- Real-time monitoring
- Reports on potential threats
This flexibility does require more specialized knowledge, in order to maintain the firewall according to industry best practices.
Customization and Automation
While UTMs offer basic customization, their strength lies in ease of deployment rather than fine-tuned control. UTMs are inherently less customizable, because they are designed to simplify security management. The trade-off for this ease of use extends throughout customization and scalability.
Scalability in this type of system is limited, which is why organizations that outgrow the capabilities of their UTM often need to do a full, complex migration to more specialized solutions.
For NGFWs, customization is a key strong point. This inherent customization is what makes firewall deployment possible – it’s how the firewall’s network interfaces get connected up to the various networks or zones your organization needs to protect.
With the firewall set up, this customizability runs down to the granular traffic visibility, which allows network administrators to create and maintain network safety via highly specific policies.
Leistung
In the NGFW vs. UTM debate, performance continues to be a major differentiator. The individual components included within a UFM solution are essentially able to handle an upper limit of traffic. But for small companies, a UTM can still offer a better-performing network through basic configurations. UTMs’ traffic shaping protocols, for instance, can allow fledgling organizations to prioritize data packets, and therefore ease congestion.
However, these congestion calming methods don’t do much against the latency that can be accrued when security measures are active. Because UTMs perform multiple security functions within a single device, high traffic loads or complex processing demands can dramatically impact the performance of the wider network.
This is why UTMs are generally best suited for lower-traffic environments
With specialized hardware and optimized software, NGFWs are designed for high-throughput environments – in the realm of dozens of GBs per second – and can handle larger volumes of network traffic than UTMs.
Because of the beefier underlying hardware, NGFWs are able to execute advanced DPI and IPS even during high throughput.
Kosten
NGFWs are generally more expensive than UTMs due to their advanced features, superior performance, and higher customization potential.
The total cost of ownership includes not just the initial investment but also:
- Ongoing maintenance
- Updates
- The need for specialized personnel to manage and monitor the system.
And while this cost can put it out the reach of smaller organizations, the more established businesses that require robust security see NGFWs’ ability to provide significant long-term value.
Because UTMs package multiple security features into a single device, they’re generally far less costly.
Feedback