We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Juniper SRX Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering Fortinet, Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, and other competitors of Juniper SRX. Updated: November 2021.
554,529 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Juniper SRX competitors and alternatives

FelixCheung
IT Director at Wise Ally Holdings Limited
Real User
Top 20
Enables us to control what kind of applications each staff member and department is able to access, but UI is not user-friendly

Pros and Cons

  • "Because we bought two firewalls... we need a central place to manage the policies and deploy them to both devices. It's good that it provides a system management console that is able to manipulate and manage policies in one place and deploy them to different locations."
  • "The UI is not as user-friendly as the model that I had used before, which was from Check Point. The design of the Firebox UI is restricted and needs an experienced network guy to understand the format and settings."

What is our primary use case?

The purpose is to enhance the application control and internet access control of our company in our office and factory.

How has it helped my organization?

Firebox provides our business with layered security. Before implementing the firewall, we didn't have any control over application access. Now, by using the Firebox, we can control each staff member and department and what kind of application they're able to access on the internet, especially with the popularity of cloud SaaS systems. It has really reduced the degree of risk in accessing those unauthorized, and potentially risky, destinations. WatchGuard provides a pre-built database that can protect against gambling domains, for example. But the accuracy of that database still needs to be improved because, in many cases, the categorization of the website is not exact.

It has also helped with productivity. It reduces the time our networking staff spends implementing things. It has saved about 20 percent of our time. We're also doing more control than before, so we have made some effort to configure the policies, which was something we'd never done before. Previously, we didn't have any control, so we didn't have to spend time configuring or troubleshooting application control policies.

What is most valuable?

There wasn't one particular valuable feature. What I like is that 

  • its pricing is competitive when compared with other brands, 
  • it has all-in-one features for intrusion detection
  • it has application control 
  • it has email control.

Also, the load balancing and failover features cost only 20 percent more than a single instance of Firebox. Those are the main reasons we chose it.

Because we use cloud applications like Office 365 and Salesforce, we don't want all our staff accessing the whole internet. We use the application control so that they are only able to access the company-authorized cloud applications.

Because we use the firewall to monitor the external traffic as well as the internal traffic, we bought a fairly large model, the M570. We turned on most of the features and the performance is comfortable. It can reach the throughput, the performance specified on the data sheet.

Also, because we bought two firewalls, which I know is not that many — not like in the retail industry where they have many firewalls in their retail stores — still, we need a central place to manage the policies and deploy them to both devices. It's good that it provides a system management console that is able to manipulate and manage policies in one place and deploy them to different locations.

What needs improvement?

The reporting features are not as flexible as I thought before I bought it. You can retrieve some simple statistics from the centralized reporting server. But let's say I want to look at the volume of internet access among our staff. There are no out-of-the-box reports or stats or any unit of measurement that show internet access for particular staff. There is no report that shows how long they're on or the volume of traffic, especially in a particular period. It's not necessary that it have very modern BI analytics, but at this point I'm a little bit disappointed with the reporting. One of the purposes of implementing the firewall was to do more application control and reduce the risk involved in employees accessing the internet. We want to measure and know how much time of our staff spends accessing and browsing and using internet resources.

For how long have I used the solution?

We bought WatchGuard Firebox last year and implemented it in our Hong Kong office and China-based factory. In the factory we have larger coverage and we use the M570. For our Hong Kong office we use the M370.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's stable. So far, there have been no incidents.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Our case is quite straightforward. We only use two nodes. We still need to expand to one or two more factory locations, as well as our office. We will scale out the same solution.

I do have previous experience in the retail industry. In that industry, where you need to implement many firewalls in multiple retail stores, I doubt the management tools of the Firebox would be able to scale out for that use case. But for our use case it's good.

How are customer service and technical support?

We haven't had any issues so we haven't contacted their technical support. It's been quite stable over the year since we implemented it.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

There was no application control in our old solution and we wanted to reduce the risk of being attacked from outside. So we looked for a UTM model and the cost-benefit of the WatchGuard Firebox was one of the best.

I did a little bit marketing research locally and listened to recommendations from some partners in Hong Kong.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was quite straightforward. It's a typical UTM.

Our implementation took about two months.

In terms of our deployment strategy, we implemented one of the firewalls. We replaced our old firewall, enabling only the internet access and left the major email traffic access. Then we defined the control by defining more specific application policies. Once it was successful, we used the same method to deploy the other firewall to our China side.

We have one person who maintains the Fireboxes, but it's really less than one because he does other administration and is not only dedicated to firewall administration. We have about 100 people in the Hong Kong office and on the factory side there are 400.

What about the implementation team?

We had one internal staff member and an external consultant from BARO International for the deployment. Our experience with BARO was good. They understood our requirements and were able to translate them into an actual solution and deploy it.

What was our ROI?

We have seen ROI using WatchGuard.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We needed a firewall to control our internal network and the external access and we needed to implement load balancing and failover as well. Going with WatchGuard "increased" our budget.

WatchGuard had a very competitive price. It was only 10 to 20 percent more than a single instance device but with that extra cost it provided a second load balancing device and the licensing scheme didn't charge double. They only charge for one license, unlike other brands whose method of hardware and software licensing would have doubled our cost. That was a major consideration.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked at Juniper, Check Point, and one more that was the most expensive.

The usability of the Firebox is good. But the UI is not as user-friendly as the model that I had used before, which was from Check Point. The design of the Firebox UI is restricted and needs an experienced network guy to understand the format and settings. When I used the Check Point a few years ago, the UI usually guided me on how to define a policy from the source to the target, and what the objects were, and how to group objects, and everything could be seen from a simple, table-based web UI. 

The interface of the Firebox is clumsier. The settings are like a tree structure, and you need to drill down to each node in order to get to the property. It serves the same purposes, but I won't memorize all the settings. A more user-friendly user interface would reduce the number of things I need to memorize and guide me in configuring policies. It's quite good, but is not the best I have seen.

The other brands provide more professional features for reporting, the application control, and the scalability. But the strong point of WatchGuard is their all-in-one features that are suitable for our size of company and our budget.

What other advice do I have?

WatchGuard is not the best. We already knew that, but it comes with most of the features we need. Although it's not the most user-friendly, we sacrificed that to keep the core features to increase our control while maintaining our budget. Honestly, there are no particular features of the WatchGuard that impressed me to say, "I must choose a WatchGuard." But when I needed several things to come together, then I really had no choice.

I would rate WatchGuard Firebox at seven out of 10. It's good, it's better than a six, but from the management point of view, it has not totally satisfied my expectations so it's below an eight or nine.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Maaz Khan
Network Security & Virtualization at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
IPS system is the strongest you can get and it has good decryption

Pros and Cons

  • "The IPS system is the best in the field."
  • "Higher levels of support are excellent but new users may need additional options."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use for this solution depends on the preference of a customer and to some extent their existing environment.  

We have to establish things like:  

  • what are the business requirements  
  • how we can utilize what is existing or if the client needs to upgrade equipment  
  • what kind of servers do we put in  
  • what kind of servers does he have on cloud  
  • what kind of servers do we have on-premises  

So it all depends on the customer's requirements. If a query comes up with a client, I am happy to answer that and provide a resolution but the situation needs to consider specific needs.  

What is most valuable?

The thing I like the most about Palo Alto is that the IPS system is the strongest you can get. Even if you check with resources like the NSS Labs or Gardner — anywhere else — they all say it has the strongest IPS. It holds true even over the past five years. They are the leaders in the field.  

The reason I believe in my eyes that the IPS is the most valuable feature in Palo Alto is that the IPS is basically protecting everything. I think every two or three hours the database for the IPS signatures gets updated.  

One more feature of Palo Alto, which is not in Fortinet if you compare, is decryption. Palo Alto firewalls are doing SSL inspection and they are doing decryption as well. If we need SSL inbound inspection it is available in Palo Alto but Fortinet does not have this feature. They are not doing SSL inbound inspection. It is one more thing I would like to include as a positive feature of Palo Alto in my opinion.  

What needs improvement?

There is not really anything that needs to be improved in the product. It might be nice if it were possible for newer users to get a higher level of support.  

For how long have I used the solution?

The company I work for now is a business I more recently joined. It has been about two years with the company but I have been dealing with Palo Alto products for 10 years now.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We are talking about a firewall and we are not talking about a simple machine. We are talking about a machine that is not something you can just make simple. We are not talking about a general machine, so it does not really have general features. It does have multiple features. It does have processing engines — the parallel processing of Palo Alto — which is great. The stability will depend on the configuration and use. You really only have two options. You can either go for Palo Alto, or with Fortinet. These are the leaders of network security right now, so I guess those are stable or they would not be popular.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Palo Alto has got a lot of customers now — even in the middle East. Almost every version has been scalable. That is the main reason that people are buying the product. I am satisfied with the scalability.  

How are customer service and technical support?

The quality of technical support usually depends on your support level. If your support level is 24/7 365 then obviously your support is going to be perfect. But if you did not purchase that support, you will have some other level of support which is not 365 days. For example, they have an option for eight-by-seven which is eight hours per day seven days a week or something like that. The eight-by-seven support is not good in that case if you need it often or at times when it is not available.  

I have worked for Palo Alto as well as consulting about their products and they are really good at what they are doing, but there are pros and cons for every product. This applies especially to the goals when it comes to support. Most of the customers are not educated enough to do hands-on technical stuff on a product that is new for them every time even if they have experience with similar products. They need support because the basic concepts are essentially the same for firewalls everywhere, but the operating system and the way it does the processing is different for every type of firewall. So new users of Palo Alto may require support to set up most of the things, and if a user does not have the level of support he needs, he will be facing issues. He will not be able to finish his work on time.  

I really feel that all products have some level of technical support issues. Every product has pros and cons and even in the support level. A lot of times we will not find support in our same region. It would be located in different regions. So it happens to be pretty much normal for IT. People probably do not feel that is a good issue to face, but issues in the support are actually fine. That is manageable.  

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I do have experience using next-generation firewalls, traditional firewalls, NDN (Named Data Networking) firewalls, distributed firewalls, and NSX. We still use various products but I prefer to use Palo Alto because of its capabilities.  

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I am actually satisfied with the pricing of Palo Alto even though it is expensive. If you are talking about using products by a leader in the field and it is a bit expensive compared to other vendors, then that is totally fine for me because you are not compromising your security. In many other cases — like if there are budget issues — the companies can always go for Fortinet. It is also a good firewall, but it is cheaper. If you have got the budget to purchase Palo Alto, get it. If you do not have the budget, go for Fortinet or any other firewall.  

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

When we were looking for some different solutions, I was looking for comparisons between AlgoSec's firewall and others. I have been trying to research basically right now before purchasing another solution. We are looking for firewall management. We have multiple-vendor firewalls and we are looking to manage them from one console. From there I can manage all my multi-vendor firewalls, DMZ, internal firewalls, group firewalls, et cetera. That is why I was looking at AlgoSec, because it is capable of doing re-certification as well as integrating with NSX as well. There are a lot of things it can do. AlgoSec seems to meet my basic requirements for the solution.  

We are using multiple vendors like Cisco, Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Juniper. We are not limited to one vendor. We have different environments and different firewalls for each environment.  

But mostly, in the current market over here, the clients are preferring to go with Palo Alto as a DC (Data Center) firewall to use internally because IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) is really strong. As for Fortinet, people are preferring that as a solution for DMZ.  

What other advice do I have?

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would give Palo Alto a rating of nine-out-of-ten.  

I would not give the product a ten and it is not really because there are additional features can be included to make it a perfect ten. Nobody is perfect. Based on smaller support issues is not really something I can rate a product on. Based on their performance in being a leader of these technologies and the leaders and the inventors of next-generation firewalls — based on that, I am giving them a nine. They have better processing which Palo Alto is the only one doing. Based on that and IPS system I give them a nine. And because I am not a perfect guy, I keep one Mark.  

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
EricHart
CEO at NPI Technology Management
MSP
Top 20
Great support and extremely stable with an excellent command-line interface

Pros and Cons

  • "Everything is all documented in the file or in the command line script that gets uploaded to the device. It gives us great visibility."
  • "I would say that in inexperienced hands, the interface can be kind of overwhelming. There are just a lot of options. Too much, if you don't know what you are looking for or trying to do."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use it for our clients. We have one or more at each client site - or multiple locations if they have multiple locations.

Typically our clients are up to about 500 users. Most of them are smaller than that, but they go as large as 500. They're using the solution for the full next-gen firewall stacks - intrusion protection, URL filtering, advanced malware protection, or so-called AMP. Those are the three subscription services that Cisco sells. All of our clients have those subscription services enabled at their main location. Typically, they're just protecting users that are behind the firewall. We also use it for site-to-site VPN, and we use it for client-to-site VPN.

How has it helped my organization?

In terms of our clients, security is one of those things that, ideally, nobody notices. It improves the functioning in the sense that you don't get hacked. However, from a noticeable, management point of view, the URL filtering is a pretty significant enhancement. People are able to block access to various websites by category. It isn't revolutionary. Lots of products do this. However, it's a nice sort of add-on to a firewall product.

At the end of the day, the solution offers good productivity enhancement to a company.

What is most valuable?

Cisco's support is great. 

For experienced users, they are pretty much able do anything they want in the interface with few restrictions.

The command-line interface is really useful for us. We script basic installations and modifications through the command-line, which is considered sort of old school, and yet it allows us to fully document the changes that we're making due to the fact that we can save the exact script that was applied and say, "Here are the changes that we made." 

We can have less experienced people do initial takes on an install. They can edit a template, and we can have a more experienced person review the template, and then apply it, and we don't have to worry about whether anyone inexperienced went into certain corners of the interface and made changes or whatever.

Everything is all documented in the file or in the command line script that gets uploaded to the device. It gives us great visibility.

What needs improvement?

I would say that in inexperienced hands, the interface can be kind of overwhelming. There are just a lot of options. It's too much if you don't know what you are looking for or trying to do.  

The GUI still uses Java, which feels out of date today. That said, it's an excellent GUI.

The biggest downside is that Cisco has multiple firewall lines. The ASA line which is what we sell, and we sell most of the latest versions of it, are kind of two families. One is a little older, one's a little newer. We mostly sell the newer family. Cisco is kind of de-emphasizing this particular line of products in their firewall stable. That's unfortunate. 

They have the ASA line, Meraki, which is a company they bought some years ago where all the management is sort of cloud interface that they provide rather than a kind of interface that you manage right on the box. They also bought Snort and they integrated the Snort intrusion detection into the ASA boxes. In the last couple of years, they've come out with a sort-of replacement to Snort, a line of firewalls that don't use IOS.

It's always been that the intrusion prevention and the based firewalling features had separate interfaces within IOS. They've eliminated IOS in this new product line and built it from the ground up. We haven't started using that product yet. They have higher performance numbers on that line, and that's clearly the future for them, but it hasn't reached feature parity yet with the ASA. 

The main downside is that it feels a little bit like a dead end at this point. One needs to decide to move to one of these other Cisco lines or a non-Cisco line, at some point. We haven't done the research or made the plunge yet.

What I would like to see is a more inexpensive logging solution. They should offer either the ability to maintain longer-term logs right on the firewall or an inexpensive server-based logging solution. Cisco has logging solutions, however, they're very high end.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using the solution for 20 or more years. It's been well over two decades at this point.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is solid. It's a big advantage of choosing Cisco. There are no worries about stability at all.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of the solution is good. Within our customer base, it is absolutely scalable. You can go very large with it. However, if you really want the highest speeds, you have to move off of the IOS ASA line and onto the newer stuff.

Typically our clients cap out at 500 employees.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is excellent. They are extremely knowledgeable and responsive. It'd rate the ten out of ten. We're quite satisfied with the level of support Cisco provides.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We did use Juniper's NetScreen product on and off for a while. We stopped using it about ten years ago now.

We had previous experience with the Cisco gear, so we were comfortable with it, and Juniper bought the NetScreen product and sunsetted it. You had to move into a different firewall product that was based on their equivalent of IOS, something called Juno OS, and we didn't like those products. Therefore, when they sunsetted the Juniper products, we looked around and settled on Cisco.

How was the initial setup?

Due to the fact that we're experienced with it and we've scripted the command line, it's extremely simple for us. That said, I think it's complex for somebody that doesn't know the IOS platform.

What other advice do I have?

We're Cisco resellers.

We're always on the latest version. I don't actually keep track of the version numbers myself, however, part of what the service that we provide for our clients is updating their firewalls to the latest version.

We use multiple deployment models. We use both on-premises and cloud versions. They are also all different sizes, according to the requirements of the company.

I'd advise other companies considering Cisco to be sure to factor in the cost of the ongoing security subscriptions and the ongoing SmartNet into the purchase price. Those things, over the years, represent more than the cost of the firewall itself - significantly more. However, I'd advise others to get the security subscriptions due to the fact that it really dramatically increases the security of the solution overall.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate them at an eight. We love the product, however, we feel like it's not Cisco's future direction, which is the only reason I would downgrade its score. To bring it up to a 10, they'd have to make it their main product line again, which they aren't going to do.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Zhulien Keremedchiev
Lead Network Security Engineer at TechnoCore LTD
Real User
Top 20
Good evaluation period, support, and it has a powerful intrusion policy

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature that Cisco Firepower NGFW provides for us is the Intrusion policy."
  • "I believe that the current feature set of the device is very good and the only thing that Cisco should work on is improving the user experience with the device."

What is our primary use case?

My primary use case with Cisco Firepower NGFW is implementing, configuring, maintaining, and troubleshooting lab and customer devices in both lab and production environments.

Using best practices for configuration, as well as fine-tuning intrusion policies and utilizing as many of the features that the firewall has to offer, which are feasible in said environment.

Overall, I am confident to say that I have worked with every flavor of Cisco Firepower NGFW, be it their older IPS-only sensors, ASA with Firepower services, as well as the FTD sensor itself.

How has it helped my organization?

Cisco Firepower NGFW has improved our organization by giving us the opportunity to protect both our network and our customer's environments. Being able to work with the device in a lab environment and utilizing the whole feature set is really easy with the Evaluation licenses of 90 days on the FMC. The only thing that you need is an environment with enough resources to virtualize both the FMC and FTD sensors.

I would like to emphasize the easy-to-use evaluation period of the Cisco Firepower NGFW because many other firewall vendors lack this and it is a real pain having to test everything in production environments because you cannot build a good lab environment without paying for licenses.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature that Cisco Firepower NGFW provides for us is the Intrusion policy. 

Again, with that being said, I cannot shy away from giving kudos to all of the other features such as AVC (Application Visibility and Control), SSL Decryption, Identity policy, Correlation policy, REST API, and more.

All of the features that are incorporated in the Cisco Firepower NGFW are awesome and easy to configure if you know what you are doing. Things almost always work, unless you hit a bug, which is fixed with a simple software update.

What needs improvement?

I believe that the current feature set of the device is very good and the only thing that Cisco should work on is improving the user experience with the device. 

Also, they need to ensure that all of the implemented features are working as they should, and able to integrate with more third-party software in an easier manner.

As it stands currently, Cisco is doing this, but I am not confident enough to say that their QA team is doing as good a job as they should as there have been software releases that were immediately pulled back the same day as they were released.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Cisco NGFW for almost five years as of 2020.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have seen devices working without any issues and/or without a reboot of the device for many years (although I do not recommend this) running on base versions of the software, and I have seen an out-of-the-box fresh install having many stability issues. However, overall my impression is that the most recent software versions are very stable without any evident underlying issues.

Keep your software up-to-date and the solution should be stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Cisco Firepower NGFW has a large variety of devices that are able to accommodate every company's needs, be they small or large. Overall, the scalability of the devices is very good.

How are customer service and technical support?

Experience with Cisco TAC has been awesome almost always. The SLAs are kept every time, which is very hard to get from any of the other firewall vendors. I have not seen any other vendor get you a proficient engineer on the phone within 15 minutes.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Cisco ASA and Firepower NGFW is the first firewall solution that I have and am still using.

How was the initial setup?

Once you deploy a few of these devices, the initial setup is really straightforward and easy to do unless the position of the firewall on the network needs you to do some connectivity magic in order for it to work.

What about the implementation team?

All of the implementations that we have done are with in-house teams, so I have no overview of the vendor team.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Cisco, as we all know, is expensive, but for the money you are paying, you know that you are also getting top-notch documentation as well as support if needed. In some cases, this may save you a lot of money or stress, which is why everyone who uses Cisco solutions loves them.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have worked with many other firewall vendors in both production and lab environments such as CheckPoint, Palo Alto, Fortinet, Juniper, but to be honest I find Cisco's firewall solutions and Palo Alto's firewall solution to be the best.

What other advice do I have?

I believe that Cisco Firepower NGFW is the future leader in NGFW, with only maybe Palo Alto being the main competitor. This is very good, as we all know that having a rival is good for us, the users :) 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
AM
Manager with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 10
Good content filtering but needs better software and has a faulty DPI SSL feature

Pros and Cons

  • "The basic firewall rules of the solution are great."
  • "The product has a lot of bugs, actually. We are facing some issues with this product. The DPI SSL feature which is there, it is not working properly."

What is our primary use case?

The solution is primarily used as a perimeter firewall for a gateway toward public internet traffic. Basically, it is a gateway between our internal network and public traffic.

What is most valuable?

Feature wise, the content filtering is good.

The basic firewall rules of the solution are great.

What needs improvement?

The product has a lot of bugs, actually. We are facing some issues with this product. The DPI SSL feature which is there, it is not working properly.

The IRL, when it was installed, had us facing some issues. However, as they kept on uploading the images, the issues are starting to get fixed. 

They already have this feature of advanced capture, set rotation, and so it is a next-generation firewall only. They could improve on their software side. Their software, which is managing the hardware, it's not up to the mark.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using our current particular model (NSA 5600, the most current model) for the last two years. The other firewall we were using, SonicWall 5500 we've used for the last seven or eight years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It took some time for us to establish stability within the solution at the beginning. At this point, we find it to be quite stable except for the DPI SSL feature.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We had already scaled from the older version, the 5500, however, the 5600, is quite a new product. They have since changed the OS, so it ended up being a bit complex from the earlier version. The complexity is there, obviously. It's not that easy to manage. You really need to have someone with knowledge right there with you.

It is an internal firewall. All of our traffic, internal traffic, goes through this firewall only. There are somewhere around, at any point in time, 600, 700 users. We have total sync of 2,000 users, 2,000 plus. But at any point in time, 600 users are there, connected. It runs continuously, on a daily basis.

How are customer service and technical support?

We've never contacted technical support in the past. We go through our vendor. We don't call SonicWall. 

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

While there are a lot of options on the market, we only use SonicWall at this time. We have used Sophos in the past previously. We found that Sophos Firewall had more flexibility compared to SonicWall, especially in the configuration capabilities.

How was the initial setup?

he initial setup was actually it was done by our vendor partner. And it was not difficult for them. However, during the initial set up, we faced some issues. It was not easy until there were image upgrades, and now those issues are fixed. 

We've also outsourced the maintenance part of the solution's upkeep to our vendor. We only do the followup and we level call. Basic manageability, they do the operation, we manage at our end. Basic operations. But for other calls, we level call with the vendor.

What about the implementation team?

We hired our vendor partner to do the initial implementation for us. We didn't handle it in-house.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I'm not sure what the pricing of the product is. It falls within a middle range in terms of pricing. It' not the cheapest or more expensive. 

The SSL VPN feature, which is what we needed to purchase, is a separate license.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

There's a lot of firewalls available, including Cisco, FortiGate, and Juniper firewalls too. There are many alternatives.

What other advice do I have?

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with SonicWall.

I wouldn't recommend the solution, actually. It's hard to set up and the stability takes a while to establish. They need to do better on their software side, and other solutions, like Sophos, have more flexibility in their configuration capabilities.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering Fortinet, Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, and other competitors of Juniper SRX. Updated: November 2021.
554,529 professionals have used our research since 2012.