Following a merger, the number of remote sites for a company has doubled to 52. The company has decided to secure each remote site with an NGFW to provide web filtering, NIDS/NIPS, and network…

Splitting between Vendor C for small sites and Vendor B for large sites introduces a multi-vendor environment requiring separate management consoles, skill sets, and support contracts, which contradicts the CIO's requirement for easy management.

Vendor B for all sites may be under-provisioned or lack the throughput and features required by larger remote sites based on the site profile data in the reference tables, making it insufficient for capacity at scale.

Vendor C for all sites is likely sized for smaller deployments and would be inadequate for larger remote sites in terms of throughput and concurrent session capacity as indicated by the comparison tables.

Vendor A for all remote sites provides a unified NGFW platform across every location, enabling centralized policy management, consistent feature sets (web filtering, NIDS/NIPS, and network antivirus), and a single support relationship - reducing operational complexity and providing a standardized baseline that scales as the organization grows further.

Vendor D for all sites would likely represent significant over-provisioning at smaller sites, driving unnecessary cost without meeting the balanced sizing and growth capacity requirement specified by the CIO.