Cisco Meraki MX Reviews

I used the MX80 as primary FW in a small Office with 50 users. The options provide even non-FW-specialist a way to manage and block certain aspects of internet usage.

The main purpose of the Meraki is to use Internet for Users. Not filter traffic for Servers. 

Together with other network gear you get an overall visibility into each client on the network. Thats is fantastic. Meraki offers free trails and you can get the entry level gear very cheap. The support model allows usage of the cloud management only if you have support. But then you get all features and updates.

We now use the small MX as a VPN tunnel in the small offices. The SDWAN feature is great as it connects to any point if one is not available. Setup is easy as bam. Check it out.

Everyone is able to look at the cloud management to find out problems and identify the source. You don't need a FW specialist any more. You can even outsource the maintenance and support via a support account and delegate access in networks, locations or even only one device.

The solution was cloud managed, so I could access it from anywhere and deploy it with zero configuration. No need to configure anything. Just send it to the location and connect with the internet. 

The event logging, alerting, and reporting features could use improvement. Especially the export of the log is difficult. There is an API to connect to, but I have not found it easy to extract something yet.

I have used this solution for 4 years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability. Once a device was just dead and dead replacement. Once we had to replace a device because of predicted failure. Both cases were handled well by the support. We had only next business day support.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability. High bandwidth will cost something. You might be better off using multiple streams with multiple providers.

I would rate technical support 10/10.

I previously used Cisco and I switched because of missing manageability.

I now use a central Sophos FW and this can be managed through the central AV and Protection Cloud Management if you use Sophos as AV client.

The initial setup was easy. Some features need more investigation (client VPN). SDWAN is great. Some more training on how to set something up would help like VLAN. Even if it is that easy to configure it, the basic concepts might be missing.

Other provider did not jump on Meraki as I would expect. Most of them do not support nor use Meraki. It is difficult to find support provider to help if there is a problem.

With many locations you will save a lot on traveling and deployment, as you don't need this any more. The costs inc. support is comparable with other vendors.

Compare total costs (setup and management), taking in mind that cloud features do more than just stop traffic on the edge: they identify both traffic and users.

Is it getting used to have support as a must. But realistically I would not use any other FW without support today.

We used Cisco products, we tested several other vendors too. Sophos is a close match in manageability and offer real FW features, but is more complex and needs more training.

Meraki is still best for an office FW. Simple categories, features, SDWAN. I would not use it for Web Server protection or Server to Server firewall so.

Be prepared for a new way of managing networks. Test it. See the webcast. The zero deployment is a killer feature. Network Products like switches and Wifi do the rest.

I like the automatic firmware updates. We use the Active Directory to authenticate VPN users. 

Expensive licensing and firewall stops immediately working if the licence is not renewed at the expiration date.

It's very stable. I haven't had any issues with the stability. 

I have not used the scalable features at all. We have around ten users using this solution at the moment. We don't have plans to increase the usage, all business is exhausted. 

It doesn't require staff to maintain it. It's up and running. Tops it requires is one staff checking on it once a month. 

Their technical support has been great. 

We did previously use a different solution. We switched because that solution wasn't stable. 

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment took around four hours. 

I deployed it myself. 

I did evaluate other solutions but once I found Meraki, I wanted to give it a try. 

I would rate it a ten out of ten. I'm very happy with the solution. 

I use Meraki in my POCs and with my customers as well.

From a subscription base or price perspective, there's some room for improvement.

They also need more security features. There are good security features now, but I need more of the security features to offer UTM protection.

I would rate this solution nine out of 10. As a solution, there is no need for improvement, it's a good solution.

The internet traffic shaping functionality has been very valuable.

The IPS, the Intrusion Prevention System, can be improved. If they can add I think the next generation firewalls, that would be great.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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.