Cisco IOS SSL VPN Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is security. It is very effective and I am satisfied with how it works and with its performance. 

The most valuable feature about this solution is that the client can connect from his house to the office. It does, however, take some time to configure.

The administration should be improved.

The last deployment we did, was for a customer about three months ago. The customer has three branches and we deployed Cisco SSL VPN and I think it is stable.

Cisco has good products and the products have good scalability. Some of my clients have more than 60 users!

The technical support department is very good.

The initial setup is easy, but the complicated part is to configure out what the customer wants. Clients need assistance from integrators or consultants for the deployments, so the customer usually calls my company or calls me to deploy the Cisco solution for them.

On a scale from one to 10, where 1 is the worst and 10 is the best, I would you rate Cisco SSL VPN a seven. 

We primarily use this solution as browser and I like that you don't need a username or password to browse.

Sometimes browsers are not able to support a certain file, so that is something that can improve.

The solution is stable if you have a stable internet connection.

The setup and installation was easy. We had the help of a Cisco integrator, because one needs support from the system team to access your server and your VPN. So you basically have to know all the information about the server if you want to have access.

The pricing of the solution is reasonable - G Grade.

On a scale of one to ten, I give this solution an eight. In the next version I would like to see easier installation that allows a default to open un-trusted servers. The servers should be more user-friendly too. 

We use this solution to connect to our LAN, so that our users are able to access the necessary applications that are designed to be used on-premise. We predominantly use Cisco products and we find it very easy for us to use. 

I think the administration can be improved to include web interfaces. And I also feel that the deployment of the clients can be better. 

It's a very stable solution and I'd say it works perfectly. The only issue may be ensuring that connectivity between the Cisco Firewall and the access directory should be maintained. 

We have about 450 up to 750 users connected to the VPN. I don't see us increasing the number of users because we are trying to migrate some of our applications on the cloud, and we use cloud VPN. 

We work directly with local Premier Partners for Cisco, and they help us in terms of scoping the solution and checking our implementation.  So I think that's how we contact Cisco support indirectly. But we also have instances where we contact Cisco directly, should we need other support, but it's really very rare. Most of the solutions features work perfectly.

Most of our configurations are done by our Cisco Premier Partner, but it's relatively easy to set up Cisco SSL VPN.

I would say the price is high in terms of other solutions, but I believe it's worth the price for enterprise customers. The stability matches the pricing. So I would say it is a bit expensive, but I think it is worth the price.

On a scale from one to ten, I will rate this solution a nine. 

I primarily use the solution for remote access for my clients.

The solution is very easy to work with. This is its most valuable feature. They also did a good job surrounding how you configure the devices.

The solution needs to solve the issues they have with Java.

Cisco device management is quite difficult. They should work to simplify this.

In terms of stability, I think it would be nice if Cisco could manage their Java problem. Sometimes it works and sometimes it requires troubleshooting or you need to take the time to update in order to fix the Java issue. 

I have contacted technical support in the past, but nowadays our company is not allowed to contact Cisco directly because we don't have a contract with them. Intermediary companies can, however. In the past, I have been satisfied with the level of service I've received.

If the person setting up the solution understands the underlying technology, they won't have trouble with the initial setup of the product. It's a bit complex. Besides following the steps of the setup, you have to understand what you are doing, otherwise, you can get lost in the process.

I'm a Cisco engineer, so I was able to implement the solution myself.

I use the on-premises deployment model. I've worked with Cisco products for 15-16 years.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is to connect offices to their services through the VPN tunnel.

The deployment model we are using is on-premises.

It is easy to create. I like to work with the CMD command line because it's easy and it doesn't take very long to configure.

It works quickly compared to other solutions.

It can be difficult to find service and at times we cannot connect with the internet easily. It should be easier to find an internet connection through vendors.

They could have a better internet router solution.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable.

We have a minimum of ten users, and a maximum of one hundred and fifty users.

The technical support is good.

We contacted a consultant, a reseller, and an integrator to implement this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for business operations.

I find each and every feature of this solution valuable.

The pricing needs to be better because you need a license for every device.

I have been using Cisco SSL VPN for around four years.

The solution is very stable.

There are no issues when it comes to scalability.

We get local support and we are satisfied with the support we get.

The initial setup wasn't complicated at all and the installation was done by resellers.

Nothing is perfect and my advice to others would be to look at their requirements before they choose a solution. Cisco has been tested and used widely so there are virtually no issues in terms of selecting Cisco. But it's up to each client to determine what they need when it comes to things like trafficking. 

Additional features that I would like to see included in the next release of Cisco VPN is that it should be compatible with all the devices like mobile devices, laptops, or iPads. 

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this solution an eight.

The feature I find most valuable is the management portal. The one we're currently using is much more simple and with the IOS version 9, there is quite an improvement on the stability and the configuration of the solution itself.

I think the management of the design of the console or portal needs to improve because when you compare it to other vendors, you find that the graphical interface is old. I do, however, believe that the newer version has an improved graphical interface.

An improvement in the scalability of the solution will also be great.

The newer version is much more stable than the versions we used a few years ago.

I think the scalability could be improved in the next version but it's fine for now.

The documentation that comes with the program is pretty clear and everything is explained well. So we haven't used the customer service yet.

The difficulty of the initial setup depends on the security or policy configuration one needs to implement. But for us, it was quite straightforward and not difficult at all. We did the installation and deployment ourselves. 

My advice to others would be that, if they are going in the cloud, they can use other products from the cloud too. In the next version, I would like to see central management, because sometimes you have more than two or three devices. If we can have a solution that can manage all these devices, that will be great. For example, if you need to update one device, you can just do it from one place without having to update all of them separately. On a scale from one to ten, I rate this solution a seven. 

We use the on-premises deployment model. Our primary use case of this solution is to support remote office workers.

The most valuable features are that it's reliable, convenient, and easy. It always works if configured well.

I would like for it to have support for the Dutch language. I typically use English in 99% of our communications but for some people, it matters. 

Stability is good. 

I don't have any issues with scalability. We have around 3,000 users. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The time it takes to deploy depends on the product internally. It took a couple of months. It was a phased approach, that was not due to the complexity of Cisco. In total it took a couple of months. 

We used an integrator for the deployment. 

It was quite easy to set up. I don't get any complaints about it. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten because I would never give a ten out of ten.