Cisco Meraki MX Reviews

We usually work with small businesses, so their requirements are simple. They just need to have a firewall to protect their internal network. Mainly that is it. So it's a simple firewall.

If Meraki could handle more than one internet connection and a bonding formula then that would be valuable. Load balancing options and ability to manage a couple of Internet connections, that's it. This is the main thing I see that the solution needs.

We've used Meraki for one year, so it's not enough time to evaluate the ability but it's still working.

Since we've only used it for one year, there's still a question about scalability.

We usually buy it and we install it ourselves. So we don't need support.

The initial setup is straightforward for a simple firewall. Deployment takes no more than one working day.  For deployment, you only need a technician, a well-trained technician to go onsite and just install it. The rest could be supported online, if they need on-site support it's very rare.

In terms of advice, I would say you should really prepare for open source because you have more control. For us here, we are well trained in firewalling as we have access to open source software and we are good at it. Open source gets rid of all the licensing issues. Meraki is a good solution, but it's not the best solution out there.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Out of the features, I think the web filtering is most important here, and the SD-WAN solution.

Currently, if you make a rule in the firewall you have to add all of the IPs. If I'm working with an object for, say, an object group, where I put every single IP that I want into it, and then I apply it on a rule, it's a little bit easier to configure because you have a better overview of that. The overview is not completely clear. It's a bit difficult. But control of network objects is something I really want because it makes it easier to maintain.

Also, there's not enough control over system updates. Right now, you can postpone the update but eventually, if you don't do the update, it will install the updates automatically for you and that's something that is not working for me. It can happen during business hours, for example, and then you have a big issue.

In my opinion, it's a pretty stable solution. The solution is really running in a very stable manner.

It's pretty scalable. I have, worldwide, over a million users.

As of right now, I've never needed technical support. I've never had one issue with Meraki.

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched because it was an all-in-one solution. With Cisco, we couldn't configure the ASA-1, so we needed special equipment. It became an expensive solution. Meraki is also expensive, but it's a little bit less expensive and it's easier to configure than Cisco ASA.

The initial setup for me was straightforward and was not that difficult. The first time, it took a bit, but after that, I configured templates so it made it faster. I can roll out a firewall in five minutes.

I did the implementation myself. I oversee the maintenance as well.

As advice, I would say that you should look first through the community and see the different issues that people are running up against, so you're aware of what's going on. Meraki is very easy to configure. So if you want an easy to configure firewall, I think Meraki is a good solution for you.

I would rate this solution between an eight and nine out of ten. The product still needs work and the features could be better.

Our primary use is perhaps a little unusual. Many of our clients like the product, or want to consider the product, and we own it so that we can do valid product comparison and testing.

These particular firewalls are a very good solution for a company that doesn't have an IT employee working directly on IT. For small companies with no IT department, it is very user-friendly. 

The feature I find most valuable is the auto VPN. That is because it is really easy to configure and it's really reliable. The way we do traffic shaping and the way we block trafficking, it's very easy to configure. It is also easy for clients to maintain even without IT employees.

The product could improve most by improving the client VPN. The auto VPN works for site-to-site but they have an issue with the client VPN. For example, if I connect the client VPN, I cannot block clients for specific access inside of the company. Because of the limitation, you need to make a rule for everyone and it's not very easy to do. What you really want is to have a specific client VPN with specific (fine-grained) access to different areas.

One other thing that they should have to improve product utility is some kind of templates.  For example, templates for configuration of use in a vertical market would be useful.

They have a very good product. If you contact technical support, they should already know more about your methods and your needs. Management of the firewall is on the cloud and to be so easy for the user to configure, they remove some of the more complicated options. If you want an option, you need to contact support in order to enable it. They could have, for example, a different dashboard for more advanced features that you would be responsible to pay more for.

The solution is very stable. We don't have a measurable percentage of return on the equipment.

We don't have big clients that need to scale a lot. Our biggest clients have five firewalls. At most, we are talking about 200 users all on the same side under the same firewall. We don't do much scaling.

The technical support is very good. Anytime we ask about some issue that we cannot solve we send an email for Meraki and receive a reply in minutes. 

We are installing Sophos for clients as well. Because we had so many clients interested in the capabilities of the Meraki products, it was time for us to know more about the client needs and how we could help them. If they want everything integrated, like antivirus, the products are implemented differently and may be more fitting to the client's situation depending on the client's needs. 

In our organization, we only have one Meraki firewall. I bought an MX to explore using this product for customers.

The installation is straightforward. With Cisco Meraki, it takes only half-an-hour. For very specific, customized rules that some clients want it takes more time. The standard firewall working with regular rules would take one-hour maximum.

We are certified by Cisco. As we are certified technicians we do the installations. We do it with a two-person crew deployed to our clients.

We are using the advanced Meraki license. We pay on a monthly basis. The cost depends on the size of the company, of course. The prices of all different brands — Cisco, Sophos, Palo Alto, FortiGate, Check Point — are almost the same. We are talking about a maximum of 10% difference. If you do a very good comparison, they are very similar in functionality and price.

Every brand has its own licensing model. Cisco has two different license types. Sophos has more license types and modules that you can put on your firewall like FortiGate and Check Point. Of course, if you want more features, you have to pay for it. If you want the basic models, it is much cheaper. So it is very difficult to say. The price can increase with basic models if you need to add on, but if you buy with a total protection license, you don't have additional costs but the initial costs are higher.

Every time we consider introducing a new brand here in the company, we need to evaluate it very well. If you mix a lot of brands, you need a broader knowledge base and more technical guys to give you support. I need a guy to understand Sophos, I need a guy to understand Cisco. If I support installations of another brand, I need more people who have a specialty in that new brand.

We looked into Palo Alto, we needed to know more about that solution. We had a meeting one year ago with Check Point. We decided to keep on working with Sophos and Cisco Meraki.

I would give this solution about an eight out of ten. They can buy the brand directly or from a partner. They need to consider performance. I have to be totally honest about Meraki. Because of the client VPN, the lack of an easy way to implement templates with Meraki, that's really only enough for an eight.

Meraki MX Firewalls solutions are very customized for our groups. We are a worldwide group. We are currently implementing an IT solution worldwide. 

We have to replace old firewalls in the next couple of years in many countries. We are working on this project. We used Meraki MX 55005 firewalls previously. 

In between, we used many different firewalls from other companies. We won't be doing the acquisition of many new parts by these companies now.

We have tested different brands of firewalls. We have to consolidate to handle a better solution. We chose Meraki because we are already familiar with the products. 

Meraki MX firewalls are one point, but also have good availability. We have many people from different countries in which we have Cisco contracts to serve.

It's not only a technical aspect but also a commercial reason for our choice of Meraki.

We are currently replacing all other old firewalls with new Meraki systems in the next two years. We do this first for new sites and for sites that need to change. 

We do not change everything in one step also because of budget and also because of deployment requirements. This is a worldwide deployment. It will take time.

One of the things I found very important for us is for our sites to have a new device. Another was to be able to have two solutions with the ease of firewalls to control everything.

We use Meraki MX firewalls remote for small to bigger sites. One also was to have integration with have physical DC. We work also with domain control (DC) from Microsoft or Amazon. We use a whole virtual appliance with Meraki.

One aspect of the problem is that we need to have the ability to do connections that are fully integrated, i.e. between one solution at home and at the data center. The short box epicenter is from Microsoft Azure in the future.

We are currently having a problem with Meraki in the end product. They have two kinds of enterprise licenses and an advanced security license. 

The problem is that the two licenses do not currently integrate. We have to create separate companies and do an interconnection between these licenses. 

Even to do a full free trial run, we need the same kind of licenses. This is something we seek to change because it's not fair. With this license mode, we should be able to choose which sites we use and which sites we do not need.

We often see a break in the connection between both modem and dish. We found that if we communicate with Cisco, we can find the right solution to solve this.

Currently, we have found all the things we need for our company already. Only perhaps compatibility for mobile lines is still required. 

Meraki MX is the program for us. We should have enterprise licenses.

The stability of Meraki is that we have to fight working readiness. Meraki MX firewalls are perfect. We have no problems. We do agreements for a system. 

We do the changing of old IT systems. It's working very well.

The scalability is very good. We use it for plans that are electrified and on bigger plans for our domain. We have all of our plans and software licenses that match. We have deployed with this company responsibly. 

Currently, we are 400 people. We may need two more devices for 800 users. We decided to go bigger because of our proposed acquisition of many companies in the next couple of years.

Technical support is very good and quick. We have had some incidents and best response on a couple of various issues. They are very efficient.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 7. For us, the license is a big issue and we need to get better facilities, i.e. the original problem.

From any country, it's not easy to manage a product remotely across the world. We are supporting little companies and compatibilities for three countries with different languages. 

It's not easy to deal with because the provider we use doesn't deliver to our country, even Israel. It's a problem we encounter more than the physical system. It's complicated.

The one question we get about the system in Switzerland is that when we send it to the target countries, it's not good.

We need a solution that merges both to be able to access the system and theoretically to target businesses. We don't have this possibility

We use Meraki MX firewalls with Cisco. Some features must go through Cisco to implement. What the application needs is not included in Meraki. 

I use Cisco to access a portal and they provide the features. Then we implement it in Meraki.

It's the vision of the company through the managing directors to use Meraki as a solution for switches. I suggested using the firewall or a private solution like FortiGate.

FortiGate is cheaper than Meraki. Even the license renewal is less than Meraki.

The features we have found most valuable are the firewall and the monitoring tools.

This product has room for improvement. The main features not included with the firewall is the virtual domain. With Meraki, the interface for the virtual domain could be improved.

The virtual domain is a concurrent session. The concurrent session is limited in Meraki, like FortiGate. In MX100, it's around 200 to 25,000 concurrent sessions.

In the same model with FortiGate, it's around five million concurrent sessions. It's very important to improve in Meraki.

In my view, it is very important that the number of concurrent sessions is increased.

It's stable, but there are also some features not included in Meraki.

I'm using it. It's very good. One person is required for the administration only.

The solution's technical support is good. I would rate it 8/10.

I was using Cisco and FortiGate.

The initial setup is simple. Our deployment took around 30 minutes.

I did the setup by myself. Sometimes I referred back to the integrator for support if I need to for a specific tool or policy.

Our license for the Meraki MX firewall is on an annual basis.

I am not switching to Meraki. I am combining. I'm combining to be consistent with FortiGate as it has a more powerful graph. If I do not renew the license in Meraki, the box sets would be stopped. 

In FortiGate, I can have up to one month or two months to renew. The box is working locally. It's not important to the internet service to get registered. But the box is fully licensed.

I was with Cisco but it's very expensive.

For this solution, Meraki is still more expensive than FortiGate. The FortiGate license is still less than the Meraki license. 

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate Meraki MX firewalls a 7. If they were to add the configuration tools, then it would be much higher.

We made a big change recently in the company. The company didn't have a firewall. We suggested putting Meraki products in the company.

One improvement from Meraki is security. It improves security in our network. We don't have any problems with receiving intrusion alerts now.

When you try to create an IP or when you have an alert about when a website is banned, these features are helpful. 

What I would like to see in the next version is to have more interfaces for WAN links. 

For example, if we have three providers, we can't connect to Meraki because it has only two WAN ports.

I would like to have on Meraki more WAN ports, i.e. one data internet port for two lines.

The stability of this solution is very good. You can handle everything. The Meraki MX Firewall is very easy for us to use.

The scalability of Meraki is fine. It's for me for IT, and then another person also uses it. We are two people. If something happens that we don't know how to handle, we ask for the help of the company's tech support team.

Dataways is the integrator that we bought it from to increase scalability. The limit is 48 users with shares of the Meraki for 48 ports.

In the future, we are going to increase security and put in another Meraki.

Technical support is good. It's a firewall company for medium-to-small companies. It's a little bit expensive. In order to work with Meraki support, you have to buy permission.

Buying a contract for support is three years plus some money. Usually, one or two people is enough to monitor it.

We didn't have a firewall at all previously.

The initial setup of the Meraki firewall was straightforward. Deployment took a few days. 

We bought Meraki from a Greek company called Dataways. They made an initial configuration of the Meraki device.

We were evaluating between FortiGate firewalls and Meraki. Finally, we chose Meraki. But FortiGate is a very good option.

I recommend anyone look towards the possibilities of firewalls of this caliber with Meraki. 

Research the top firewalls to compare, depending on how many users and the purpose of the need. It is great to have a firewall like Meraki or FortiGate.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Meraki an eight or nine.

The security level of our organization has changed by using Meraki MX Firewalls. We didn't have the UTM before but now we have sandboxing, tray scanning, attack preventions, and monitorization. Our security level has improved. 

The most valuable feature is the cloud solution because it is configurable from anywhere. It is very user-friendly and not hard to learn. 

We feel that Cisco provides smaller features with fewer possibilities versus other solutions out there. 

The basic configuration takes 10-15 minutes which is great. 

Our users find the entire package quite expensive. The price of the application itself is not expensive but if you take a license, it costs more than the application itself. If you get it for five years, it is almost double the price of the application.

We looked at Sophos products and there is something to be said about their ability to build a price out of what your user wants. This is not an option with Meraki. 

It is a good fit for our business needs and our client needs. 

This is an edge firewall in our company. It has the powerful options of ISP, AMP, antivirus, SD-WAN, applications control, and traffic shaping. 

In a week, we can make new policy and view what all our users did.

We appreciate the ISP features: AMP, Antivirus, applications control, and traffic shaping. The dashboard is very intuitive and easy to understand. 

I think for now, it is good. However, we could have more reporting options and the ability to send alarms to the administrator. 

It has good support services.

Our organization had a traditional WAN. We had routers to connect our branches, which was a very complex solution. 

Now, with Cisco Meraki MX84, we have a SD-WAN, and we only need Internet in all our branches. Thus, we have an easy solution to connect new branches and it is very fast.

It is very fast to implement and very easy to configure.