We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering Fortinet, Cisco, Cisco, and other competitors of Meraki MX. Updated: January 2022.
563,327 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Meraki MX alternatives and competitors

Shashidhara B N
Director - Technology Solutions & Services at Connectivity IT Services Private Limited
Real User
Top 10
This best in class Next-Gen firewall is elegant in its ease-of-use and architecture
Pros and Cons
  • "Juniper is one of the most powerful network security solutions while remaining simple to use, set up, and scale."
  • "It could have features that other products support like blade options and stand-alone endpoint security."

What is our primary use case?

For different customers, we use the product in different ways. In some cases, it is going to be an on-premises solution. In some cases, it is going to be a cloud-integrated solution. That is one of the best things about Juniper. We can use a single box and have the same unified policy structure if it is off the cloud or it is on-premises.  

Our primary use case is basically to use it like you would any other firewall. I do not call this a firewall anymore because it has functionality beyond what we traditionally think of as a firewall. Those days are gone where a firewall does just one thing. Today most of the firewall products are station firewalls. You have various options in each firewall station. In terms of comparison, you can compare Juniper with Cisco, with Fortinet, with Palo Alto and other leading products. It depends on what exactly you are planning to have it do.  

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature for me over-all is that Juniper is simplified and can still do everything that is necessary to be effective. 

On the SRX box, it has what I call a one model concept for security. I work especially with hybrid environments. With an SRX we have a single management dashboard. We can manage the internal framework easily with the centralized management component. You can work with the threat prevention, you can work with the integration, you can work with traffic management. Another good part about SRX is that you have opportunities for automation. Another thing that is very good is that all the operating systems for all Juniper boxes are the same. You do not work on different operating systems using different boxes. 

It does user validation automatically and has automated threat detection and defense. It does threat analytics, which is integrated. So as a single box, it does not just address security, it does not just handle switching, it does not just work as a firewall. It addresses everything.  

What needs improvement?

I have not given a lot of thought as to what needs to be improved because so much of technology and capabilities are expanding.  

Probably Juniper could come up with their own dedicated endpoint security. Today they have an integration with Sophos. If you really look at what SRX has as far as antivirus capability, it is really only the integration with Sophos. Sophos is good, I am not saying Sophos is a bad solution. But Juniper having their own antivirus solution may be a batter idea to make it a stand-alone product.  

If you look at Check Point. They have a lot of experience in the area of security which is integrated with their product. In comparison, Juniper could start developing its own strong capabilities with antivirus and have its own security which may even surpass relying on Sophos. Sophos could improve more but it is definitely a wonderful architecture.  

For how long have I used the solution?

I have around 22 years of experience with various similar products. My experience for the last 10 years has been on Juniper. I have worked on Cisco, on Foundry, and on Xstream. And you can make comparisons with products like Fortinet and Palo Alto next-generation firewalls.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I would rate stability on a scale of one to ten. If ten is best, I would rate a nine-point-five. I would not rate anything a ten in this industry in any case because nothing is perfect and there is always room for improvement. It is very robust. Because the product is robust and very agile that carries over well into the potential for reliability.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

When it comes to scalability, basically Juniper is modular. The SRX architecture is very important. Say I am a small-time customer with 50 people in my company and I deploy on the SRX 300 Series. If my business grows exponentially and I now have 500 people in the company. My traffic has boosted significantly — say about ten times what it was. I do not have to really worry. Within one hour, I can just switch and get a new SRX box in place. Let's say I go with the 500 Series or the 4000 Series. This is my new capacity.

The change over is so simple, because the architecture is common. Whether you talk about SRX 300 or you talk about the service provider architecture, it is the same thing except for the capability to expand and handle the volume. That is very important from a technical perspective, which normally you only need one tech person to deploy.  

For mid-sized companies or even large-sized companies, you have a lot of clients from SRX 300 to SRX 5000 Series and the product line covers all the options. This is from a very basic server-level SRX box to the Next-Generation Firewall and advanced threat mitigation.  

But one thing that scalability should really take into account is that Juniper is an enterprise product. If you are really only talking about using the Sophos UTM or only want to use the product like a firewall, then you should consider a UTM box. If you then want to add an SD-WAN as an additional part of the architecture, the UTM is not the right choice. You just take an SRX box and you have SD-WAN on that. You can have a firewall on that. You can have a UTM on that. You can integrate with the cloud. You can integrate with Linux infrastructure. You can have network security.  

Today when we talk about Check Point, we talk about Next-Generation Firewalls. That includes the Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall and Cisco Next-Generation. But no one talks about what the definition of Next-Gen is. The only difference about Next-Generation is that it has a staple firewall, by definition.  

If you are a small company and you only have five in your office, obviously you want a secure network. To do this you will buy a simple firewall. When you think of the most simple firewall, people buy a router. Then people buy a switch. Then people buy a firewall. Three devices. I would say, do not buy anything. Just buy one SRX box, which does all the three.  

Now I can also expand the same SRX 300 with a branch location. Let's say, I'm a bank customer. I have branches. Simple, I can now have the simplest of SRX 300 at all my branches or SRX 500. I just connect to my main SRX, let's say a 1500 Series with an SD-WAN topology. The project is done. Simple. I secure my network. I handle my routing. I handle my security. And I have an option for just enabling the license to get the latest threat mitigation.  

For comparison, let's take a very big enterprise network. Maybe I was the head of Informatica at APAC. I am in a situation where I have 6000 R&D developers in the organization. We monitor our total performance. Latency on the firewall should be as low as possible. This is especially critical with the current environment where people work from home. Everyone who is working from home now because of COVID has all their data still in the office and people come onto the network to get connected from home to the office.  

Imagine the load on my firewall in that situation. All the people from inside my organization are sitting outside of the office now accessing the data in the internal network through the firewall. Imagine all the data tracking is coming from all over like an external traffic base. You need to have the proper solution to handle the change in traffic and scalability is the most important factor in this case for successfully running a demanding environment.  

How are customer service and technical support?

Juniper support is very good. But more than the technical support, their documentation is awesome. You can just Google a solution right now by stating your problem. You get into the juniper.net and there is wonderful documentation. As a technical person, I have never seen any technical documentation that is as good. I would say it is awesome. Any person who has an interest to learn, who has the interest to scale his capability with the product, just has to go to the Juniper site and they will get all the information on every one of their products. I think that it is written well enough for a non-technical person to become technical.  

They have different levels of training available. They make it very easy and available for anybody to explore the solution. There are knowledgeable people available in the technical community. It is a very good solution overall.  

How was the initial setup?

I consider the setup for the product to be very easy. A basic technical person can do it. But, a person would need to know the capability of a robust box like SRX to make full use of the capabilities and the right choice of the product.  

You install the box, configure the hostname, a password, and set your IP address. By default, Juniper handles the basic configurations automatically. The control frame architecture is very nice. The whole platform architecture is very good. When you work with that box, you just divide the box into two layers: the top layer and the bottom layer. The top layer is exclusively made for the SRX box. The bottom layer is nothing but throughput where the packets get in and get out. We call it a packet forwarding engine, PFE.  

Initiating the routing packets actually go in the mapping connection between the top and the bottom, which is managed as with Oracle in an internal zone. The box is already secured when an attack happens. Nothing is 100% in the world. So, there is the possibility of an attack but at least the control center protects your network.  

The entire installation is just a couple of hours. It depends on the Oracle sizing. Let's say that you want to work on the agility of SRX, something you really need to understand is where you are deploying this product. It is different if you are comparing an SRX box or the cloud. When you are using an SRX box will it be deployed for a small enterprise, a mid-size enterprise, and a data center. You can have SRX boxes for a large data center. That is a difference in the agility of Juniper SRX compared to Cisco. For example, when I work with the cloud, I have an SRX virtual firewall, which is a high-performance network security in the virtual cloud. It is especially good for rapid deployments. It hardly takes hours to deploy on the cloud.  

When you have a container with a firewall, it is known as cSRX. Which is again, a highly available container firewall. These are used especially for microservices. When you start with a small enterprise you start with either the SRX 300 series or a 500 series, which is a next-generation firewall. It is comparable to the Cisco ASA. Probably the next good product to compare is Check Point. But the SRX product is easier to manage and deploy when compared to Check Point or Cisco.  

For the mid-size enterprise organization, we have the SRX 1400 Series or you can consider the 4000 Series. It is just an appliance. You just plug it in, switch it on, configure the network IP address, and then start configuring the protocols. You enable the licenses there, malware prevention, and all the other features you want by just adding on to the licenses.  

So it is just a matter of choosing the right appliance and from there it is practically plug-and-play. The challenge is not the initial setup and deployment, it is what you make use of.  

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

The main competitors for Juniper are Palo Alto, Check Point, and Cisco. Juniper has a lot of features that are good for engineering. Things like Fortinet and Cyberoam can not really compete with these others when it comes to these important features. Specifically, when you talk about Juniper SRX you talk about cloud deployment. You talk about malware remediation. You talk about reporting analytics. You talk about quarantining or threat intelligence (Unified Threat Management or UTM). You talk about data throttle, control prevention, email, web analysis, and integrated management. It can even just work as a router or assisting layer. It works best especially in large networks — like when you talk about service providers — where you have huge traffic flow. It is built to have flexibility and ease-of-use.  

What other advice do I have?

My advice to anyone considering Juniper as a solution would be to first understand that the product needs to be chosen to fit the environment. You want to get the one right box that has the capacity you need. You have everything you need in the model by just updating your license. You do not have to look for a new box when your traffic remains under the upper limits of the capacity. If you are under the limitations of the capacity, the traffic goes straight out, unimpeded.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Juniper SRX as a nine or even a nine-point-five overall. Additional features that could be added to make this solution a ten that other competitors have would technically make it the best product. For example, Check Point offers Blade Architecture. You just keep adding more and more blades. Because of this, Check Point — especially in the area of their security database — they are quite superior to Juniper. o there is room for improvement.  

When you really study on an enterprise level where Check Point stands out or where Juniper stands out, you have got to look into the way each product fits your needs. I mean Check Point is currently easy-to-use, and very good, global product. It also has quite a good rating from the industry over the past few years. Certainly, someone considering a purchase needs to consider options and trends.  

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Scott Morin
Owner / CEO at Midwest Technology Specialists LLC.
Top 5
Enables us to drop a lot of traffic and reduce a lot of load on otherwise poorly performing Internet connection
Pros and Cons
  • "As a whole, it has a very low requirement for ongoing interaction. It's very self-sufficient. If properly patched, it has very high reliability. The total cost of ownership once deployed is very low."
  • "The data loss protection works well, but it could be easier to configure. The complexity of data loss protection makes it a more difficult feature to fully leverage. Better integration with third-party, two-factor authentication would be advantageous."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use cases are for the firewall and for limited routing for small to medium-sized businesses. 

How has it helped my organization?

I had a client that was saturated with RDP, remote desktop attempts, while using a standard low, consumer-grade firewall. Putting in WatchGuard allowed me to drop a lot of that traffic and reduce a lot of load on their otherwise poorly performing Internet connection.

Reporting PCI and HIPAA compliance reporting, firmware updates, cloud-based firmware updates all make for visibility within the client site much easier. I can provide comprehensive reporting on user activity and user behavior which goes along with user productivity. It has excellent mobile SSL VPN capabilities that have allowed for very rapid deployment of remote workers during our current situation.

As a whole, it has a very low requirement for ongoing interaction. It's very self-sufficient. If properly patched, it has very high reliability. The total cost of ownership once deployed is very low.

It absolutely saves us time. All firewalls can be deployed with a very basic configuration in a reasonable amount of time. The uniform way in which WatchGuard can be managed allows for the deployment of much more comprehensive configurations more quickly. When it comes to troubleshooting and identifying any kind of communication issue, they use a hierarchal policy layout. It allows you to manipulate the order of precedence, simplifying troubleshooting by tenfold. Compared to a competitor, I spend less than 10% of the amount of time on WatchGuard that a similar task would take on a Meraki, a FortiGate, or a SonicWall.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable features are: 

  • The unified threat management bundle
  • Advanced threat detection and response
  • APT Blocker
  • Zero-day threat detection.

With most Internet traffic being encrypted, it is much more difficult for firewalls to detect threats. Some of the advanced features, such as the APT Blocker and the advanced threat protection, use advanced logistics to look for behavioral, nonpattern related threats. And the threat detection and response has the capability of working with the endpoints to do a correlated threat detection.

For most people, they don't think about one workstation having a denied access, but when multiple workstations throughout a network have requests that are denied in a short period of time, one of the only ways you can detect that something nefarious is going on is through a correlated threat detection. And WatchGuard has that capability that integrates at the endpoint level and the firewall together, giving it a much better picture of what's going on in the network.

It is the single easiest firewall to troubleshoot I have ever worked with. It deploys very rapidly in the event that a catastrophic failure requires the box to be replaced. The replacement box can be put in place in a matter of minutes. Every single Firebox, regardless of its size and capability, can run the exact same management OS. Unlike some of the competitors where you have dissimilar behavior and features in the management interface, WatchGuard's uniform across the board from its smallest appliance to its very largest, making it very, very simple to troubleshoot, recover, or transition a customer to a larger appliance.

It absolutely provides us with layered security. It has one of the most robust unified threat bundles available with Gateway AntiVirus, APT Blocker. It does DNS control. It does webpage reputation enabled defense. It effectively screens out a lot of the threats before the user ever has an attempt to get to them.

Externally it does a very good job of identifying the most common threat vectors, as well as different transported links, attachments, and things of that nature because of the endpoint integration. It helps protect from internal and external threats, along with payload type, and zero-day threats.

The cloud visibility feature has improved our ability to detect and react to threats or other issues in our network. It has improved firmware upgrades and maintenance reporting as well as investigating and detecting problems or potential threats.

It has reduced my labor cost to monthly manage a firewall by 60%.

What needs improvement?

The data loss protection works well, but it could be easier to configure. The complexity of data loss protection makes it a more difficult feature to fully leverage. Better integration with third-party, two-factor authentication would be advantageous.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for fifteen years. 

We mostly use the T series: T30s, T70s, some M3, and 400 series.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is the most stable firewall I work with. The incidence of failure is very low, maybe once every two years.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's very scalable. Because it has the unified configuration interface and the unified tools, or the common tools that are used from the smallest to the lowest, a ton of time and configuration, and thereby money, is saved during an upgrade, for example. The time to take an upgrade to a new appliance is a fraction of the time it would be with a competitor because of the direct portability of the configuration from the prior firewall.

We have one engineer and one part-time technician to maintain approximately 75 WatchGuards for limited, physical installations and onsite. It is very reasonable for one or two engineers to manage 200 to 300 WatchGuards. It's very reasonable.

We have just a single location in which we do use the T70 box and WatchGuard is in place at 95% of our clientele. We do not replace viable commercial-grade solutions until such time that they are ending their licensing or whatever. We do not replace FortiGates or SonicWalls while they're still viable. However, when the opportunity to replace one arises, it is our first suggestion to the client.

How are customer service and technical support?

I do not or have not had to use technical support very often, but I find it to be excellent. They're very responsive and very knowledgeable. I get engineers from a similar time zone. They're very skilled engineers and very invested in end-user satisfaction. Even though they are 100% channel-driven, they take end-users satisfaction very seriously.

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

The complexity of configuring a Sonic Wall, for example, is much, much greater than that of a WatchGuard. Identical tasks can be completed in a WatchGuard in a fraction of the time as a SonicWall. When comparing similar models, the performance of Meraki is far inferior to the WatchGuard. Its capabilities are inferior to WatchGuard. It's a simple cloud interface. Meraki's simple cloud interface is probably more appropriate for a less experienced engineer. FortiGate lacks some advanced features that WatchGuard has, but my predominant issue with FortiGate is that when all the unified threat management utilities are enabled, performance on FortiGate is inferior. Although it has capabilities, when fully enabled it does not perform as well as WatchGuard.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very straightforward. I'm able to deploy a standard template after activating the device. The activation is very simple and takes just a few minutes. Then a base configuration can be applied once the firmware has been updated and a box can be prepared for initial deployment within 7 to 10 minutes after it boots. 

It took 45 minutes to set up.

In terms of the implementation strategy, I have an implementation baseline of minimum acceptable settings and then it is adjusted based on client needs.

We deploy it to distributed locations in one of two ways. The device can be drop-shipped to the user or the endpoint and a cloud configuration deployment can be pushed to the box. My preferred method is to receive the box, perform a firmware update and a base configuration, and then ship the box.

I would recommend working with a partner for an expert-level deployment. It greatly reduces the time to deploy it. An experienced engineer can then deploy the product very rapidly and can often provide instruction on how best to maintain the product. But otherwise, the deployment is very straightforward.

What was our ROI?

They are very low maintenance, they have a very high rate of my end-user satisfaction. I'm able to provide excellent levels of service to my end-users and my customers. I would say that they have a very high value and a good return on the investment.

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

Generally speaking, I find the three years of live and total security to be the best option. By going with their total security, you do get the endpoint protection component of the threat detection and response. Typically the trade-in options, depending on your prior firewall, are options that they should request or pursue when dealing with their provider. Those programs are usually available, but they're not always offered by a provider unless you ask.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate WatchGuard Firebox a ten out of ten. 

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Senior Network Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5
Simple to set up, comprehensive, free for home users, and there is lots of support available online
Pros and Cons
  • "Sophos UTM is the simplest of these products to setup."
  • "The logs are not clear, which means that you need an additional piece of software in order to read them clearly."

What is our primary use case?

We are a solution provider and I am the architect of solutions that employ Sophos UTM.

How has it helped my organization?

Sophos was one of the first firewall products that were free, so you can install it at home and test it. Then when you have the experience, you can recommend it to customers.

What is most valuable?

Sophos UTM is the simplest of these products to setup. If you follow the instructions using the wizard, which is just a few steps, then you will have a firewall to protect you and your customer.

What needs improvement?

Sophos UTM is sensitive when it comes to setting up the SSL VPN, with the certificate.

The bandwidth speeds are limited, although this could be because they're doing web filtering. They need to have the time to filter all of the traffic.

The logs are not clear, which means that you need an additional piece of software in order to read them clearly. This is the main issue with Sophos UTM. Essentially, you need to spend time looking through the logs and if you want quicker access then you need to have third-party software.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Sophos UTM for eight years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This is a stable product. In my experience, I have only seen one case where, after four years, a customer's UTM was completely dead. The motherboard just died.

This customer had a license, so they contacted Sophos and within one week, they had a replacement.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is easy to scale. You can set up a failover with a second Sophos device, where the second one is available as a backup. You have the option to set up Sophos Lite, which is a small device from Sophos that can link with your main unit.

For example, if you have remote offices, you can have the main Sophos device in your main office, and then all the branch offices connected using the lite model. All of the traffic goes to your main site, and it will provide all the web filtering.

How are customer service and technical support?

The quality of technical support depends on who answers the call. When you reach the proper support person, they are really good and know what they're doing.

There is a lot of information available online, partly because Sophos is the old Cyberoam. Most of the time, I try to solve problems by myself. However, if I can't, I contact Sophos.

How was the initial setup?

I am a certified Sophos architect, so I help to create the solution.

I have never had any trouble setting it up. There are some things that you have to do from the command line, but that's how Sophos and other products work. It is the same with Meraki and FortiGate. 

For the most part, it's straightforward and you just follow the wizard. The questions regard your internet connection, what service you expect Sophos to provide, and of course, the main one is the license because, for home users, it is free.

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

This product is free for home users. There is a limitation to the number of devices that can be connected, but nobody expects at home that there will be more than 50 devices connected to the firewall.

For business users, if you have the proper license, it will provide full protection not only as a firewall, but will protect your web server, Exchange Server, network, and provider web filtering capabilities. These days, that is really important. You don't want somebody to get in, or when a user clicks a link, they could lose some information.

The more expensive products have better performance. If you have fast broadband then you will need a bigger device, otherwise, it will slightly reduce the speed of your throughput. For example, if you have a gigabit connection with the cheapest model, perhaps a UTM 320, then it will cut the speed by approximately 50% to 500 megabits.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We sell the Meraki MX solution to protect some of our customers, and we are resellers of FortiGate as well.

Sophos is easier to set up than Meraki.

When it comes to reading the logs of other devices, it is much easier with Meraki, FortiGate, or even the Sophos XG firewall.

At the moment, all of the firewalls on the market are doing the same thing. Once you buy the license, it will cover everything.

What other advice do I have?

Sophos UTM is a comprehensive product that does the job that it should. They have another product now, called the XG firewall, that covers everything that UTM does not. The best part about this is that you can run the XG firewall on the same hardware where UTM is installed. This means that if you're thinking that Sophos UTM is not good for you, you can always migrate to the XG firewall. That said, I have never had a problem setting up UTM and can't think of a problem that I couldn't solve with it.

Overall, UTM is good, but if you want something better that can handle more complex rules then you can use the XG firewall. My only complaint is that they limit the bandwidth, depending on the model.

The suitability of this product depends on the customer's needs. If they don't need really complicated firewall rules, yet want to protect the network and want really good web filtering, then I recommend using Meraki. If on the other hand, they have a really complicated setup and want better filtering, then Sophos is the better option.

Also, if you have your own web server or mail server on-site, then I recommend Sophos. If instead, you have a normal office network with mail stored in the cloud, then I recommend Meraki.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Nishant Kumar
Network Engineer at BILL SMITH GROUP, INC
Real User
Low priced solution with internet access blocking feature
Pros and Cons
  • "I find Sophos Cyberoam UTM very good. I like the feature of being able to block off Mac IDs that host users. For example, you have a Mac or Windows laptop and you created a hotspot. Other devices like mobiles and tablets e.g. iPads connected to that hotspot. We can block those devices that connected to the hotspot we created, only through Sophos. It's a good feature we didn't find in other UTMs."
  • "The product had a hang issue. We needed to reboot, recreate the image, and reconfigure the previous image because the product hanged frequently."

What is our primary use case?

We used it for the POC so we tried it. We used it continuously for testing purposes for four to five months.

What is most valuable?

I find Sophos very good. What I like about it is that users can make hotspots in Mac and Windows systems through this solution.

I also like the feature of being able to block off Mac IDs that host users. For example, you have a Mac or Windows laptop and you created a hotspot. Other devices like mobiles and tablets e.g. iPads connected to that hotspot. We can block those devices that are connected to the hotspot we created, only through Sophos.

It's a good feature we didn't find in other UTMs.

What needs improvement?

The product had a hang issue. We needed to reboot, recreate the image, and reconfigure the previous image because the product hanged frequently.

Being able to block applications and services could also be a product improvement.

For how long have I used the solution?

We used this solution for four to five months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of this product is very good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I find the scalability of this product very good.

How are customer service and support?

Our experience with technical support is not good. I didn't understand if there was an issue with the physical device, or if it was a technical issue, or if it was their technical support. If our issues were properly managed, for sure we will purchase again, but we did not purchase because technical support is not good. They're not supportive as well.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

We deployed it both in-house and through the vendor team.

In my team, I am capable of implementing Sophos. I tried implementing it with the vendor team who didn't have much of an idea and also saw that we weren't getting enough support from the Sophos technical team.

Suppose we have two side-to-side VPNs and we're using cloud servers. For example, my requirement is one public IP. If I go in any server part in the cloud, then I want one IP for sending data, while the other IP would be used for receiving data.

Sophos technical support couldn't help. Suppose we are already configured things on our Cisco router. They had no idea how to move the Cisco device configuration in Sophos. That was a big concern.

We deployed it physically via hardware, particularly the router, and not via cloud.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I evaluated Cisco Meraki.

What other advice do I have?

We got was the PUC part only. We are not using it right now. We are currently using ASA.

The product often had hang issues which was why we stopped using it. We will purchase again if there were no hardware issues.

The pricing for this product is good. Though its quality may not be that good, its pricing is very low, enticing small businesses to purchase it over its competitors.

I'm giving it a rating of eight out of ten because the product is really good, but you need to prepare the team, including the team handling the vendors because there are too many devices in the market. Everyone in the team needs to know how to move these things in Sophos devices, or in Sophos cloud-based technologies and application software.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Get our free report covering Fortinet, Cisco, Cisco, and other competitors of Meraki MX. Updated: January 2022.
563,327 professionals have used our research since 2012.