A10 Networks Thunder CGN vs Juniper MX Series Routers comparison

A10 Networks and Juniper are both solutions in the Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT) category. A10 Networks is ranked #2, while Juniper is ranked #1 with an average rating of 9.0. A10 Networks holds a 19.8% mindshare in CGNA, compared to Juniper’s 21.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of A10 Networks users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Juniper users who would recommend it.

A10 Networks Thunder CGN

Read 2 A10 Networks Thunder CGN reviews

377 Views
302 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Juniper MX Series Routers

Read 34 Juniper MX Series Routers reviews

1,740 Views
261 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

A10 Networks Thunder CGN

Juniper MX Series Routers

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 9, 2025

Juniper MX Series Routers and A10 Networks Thunder CGN are competing in the networking and communications sector, excelling in performance, scalability, and security. A10 Networks Thunder CGN appears to have the upper hand with its advanced performance features and ease of deployment, making it especially attractive for efficient network management.

Features: Juniper MX Series Routers offer high scalability with integrated security features, allowing networks to operate reliably across diverse environments. A10 Networks Thunder CGN provides superior address and protocol translation, making it adept at enhancing performance and security while efficiently managing network operations. Juniper's versatility in networking capabilities is distinct from A10's strengths in network management and scalability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: A10 Networks Thunder CGN facilitates a straightforward deployment process with efficient customer support, proving a cost-effective and flexible solution for swift implementation. On the other hand, Juniper MX Series Routers, although offering extensive support and documentation, require navigating more complex network setups, contrasting A10's user-friendly deployment.

Pricing and ROI: Juniper MX Series Routers involve higher initial setup costs but counterbalance them with long-term scalability and network efficiency, leading to substantial ROI for complex setups. A10 Networks Thunder CGN's more economical initial cost structure delivers impressive ROI through operational efficiencies in address and protocol translations, with lower entry cost and faster ROI compared to Juniper's complex but fruitful long-term gains.

To learn more, read our detailed A10 Networks Thunder CGN vs. Juniper MX Series Routers Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

A10 Networks Thunder CGN vs. Juniper MX Series Routers

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

A10 Networks Thunder CGN

Ranking in Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT)

2nd

Average Rating

9.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Juniper MX Series Routers

Ranking in Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT)

1st

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Routers (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT) category, the mindshare of A10 Networks Thunder CGN is 19.8%, down from 36.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Juniper MX Series Routers is 21.2%, down from 36.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Juniper MX Series Routers	21.2%
A10 Networks Thunder CGN	19.8%
Other	59.0%

Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT)

Featured Reviews

reviewer1336776

Head of Global Network Infrastructure at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees

Enabled us to collapse hardware- and software-based solutions into one

The scalability is good for us. The 5440 HW is more than capable of handling our current traffic patterns allowing us to grow and not have to do in-place upgrades in the immediate to near term. It's meeting a small portion of our overall network needs, but provides the solution that we sought out. From a hardware standpoint, it makes up a small fraction of our overall deployment, but the usage behind it is very different from what we utilize our production data center hardware for. As I mentioned, it is just providing outbound NAT-ing for us. As we grow our data center space we would expand its usage and footprint. We typically see changes in traffic due to our organic growth and ramp-up of internal services. We plan to implement the following technologies/strategies in the next three years: keeping up with PFS/ECC encryption standards as they evolve. We may or may not move more applications to public cloud. Also, it's possible we could implement cloud repatriation of applications from public cloud to private data centers.

Read full review

Patrick Anaku

Senior Network Engineer at Roke Telkom

Performance excels with reliable uptime and robust features

The best features of Juniper MX Series Routers include their performance, which is quite good for us in terms of hardware performance. The Junos OS, the software, is stable, and we don't have many issues with the Juniper system itself. They have numerous features that allow us to deliver services, be it Layer 2 connectivity to customers, Layer 3 connectivity, data center connectivity, or even security features. Hardware performance has been a top-notch reason why we chose Juniper in the beginning, especially the MX series, which performs well in terms of network uptime and we don't encounter many failures. We have had a bad experience here and there with the ACX series, and their network performance is not so great compared to MX, so we have mostly done away with the ACX and only use MX at some of the core sites. I have seen a return on investment from the solution. Initially, we deployed MX80s on the network, and since our company has been in operation since 2006, from that point we used MX80s until around 2016 when we upgraded most of them to MX204s. From our experience, once we buy an MX204, we don't have issues with it; we have never had to replace an MX204 on the network. Once we deploy it, it works until we decide to upgrade the capacity. The return on investment is significant, as once we buy it, we have no worries about performance.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"It has freed up a lot of our IP space and has been extremely reliable. We have set it up in a high availability scenario, testing it many times. It has been absolutely perfect in terms of failover."

"The most valuable features are its ease of use and deployment, and being able to collapse several solutions into a single solution, all contained within a single bit of hardware and software."

"It is very easy to use. Both the GUI and CLI interface are consistent, which makes the ease of access throughout various constituencies possible. It's also well-documented and logical."

"The product is easy to use."

"Juniper Switches is stable, easy to use, flexible, and has good performance. Also, the technology is good. It has a lifetime warranty and the prices are also very good."

"It's one of the more stable routers."

"The flexibility of the MPLS configuration is very good."

"Juniper Enterprise Routers is very flexible."

"It is very stable and scalable."

"The solution is stable."

"The most valuable feature is the capacity of the throughput for the firewall."

More Juniper MX Series Routers pros

Cons

"They don't track concurrent port usage. We have to do that in another way and it's not a very clean way. That is something that I know they could do, but they don't."

"There are a couple of features that they could look to implement, versus the workarounds that they have in place. Regarding IPv4 and IPv6, there are a couple of opportunities in there that they are working on, as well."

"The solution needs to offer SDN features."

"Better documentation to assist with implementation would be helpful."

"In terms of what could be improved, they could extend the software warranty to be for its lifetime, as well. At the moment, the software warranty is limited, I think to one year."

"The solution could improve reliability and it needs more functions."

"The solution could improve by providing enhancements to built-in SDN or SDWAN."

"In terms of improvement, I would like for it to effectively protect against the broadcast storms, multicast storms, and DDoS attacks."

"The integration could be better."

"If you are setting up a site-to-site VPN between a Juniper and Cisco device then you may encounter some issues."

More Juniper MX Series Routers cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost to buy it initially was a single purchase price. This was a cost for the hardware and software, but we got a year of service with it. Annually, we pay them a service fee, but it's not much money."

"The FlexPool consumption-based licensing model has the ability to spin up VMs as needed for NAT, as well as their ADC, which is their load balancing stuff. We are considering that, as that is a pretty attractive feature."

"I would rate it around a three. While I'm not deeply involved in pricing discussions, I believe it is comparatively more affordable than Cisco."

"$300 to $400 is the hardware cost and for licensing cost, it may be around, for support and all, $100 per year."

"There is a license for this solution and the price is very competitive. The cost is less expensive than some competitors, such as Cisco. There are additional costs for support licenses."

"The solution is more expensive compared to other solutions."

"An additional license can be purchased for support of a next-generation firewall."

"I would rate the pricing model a seven out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is not cheap."

"The price of this solution is better than other competitors, such as Cisco. We receive a lot of discounts which make the price less expensive and attractive."

"The prices for Juniper MX Series Routers are reasonable."

More Juniper MX Series Routers pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	19
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	8

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What needs improvement with Juniper MX Series Routers?

The areas of Juniper MX Series Routers that have room for improvement include the port count; for instance, the MX204 has only four 40G or 100G ports, which is quite limited. While I know there are...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Juniper MX Series Routers?

I work with an internet service provider in Uganda and have experience working with Juniper MX Series Routers, as we use Mikrotik, Juniper, and Cisco routers on our infrastructure. We have a mix of...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Juniper MX Series Routers?

The solution is deployed in our organization as hardware and it is on-prem, as we run on on-prem solutions. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Juniper MX Series Routers a nine.

See all answers

Comparisons

Nokia Virtualized Service Router vs A10 Networks Thunder CGN

Compared 32% of the time

BIG-IP Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT) vs A10 Networks Thunder CGN

Compared 12% of the time

More A10 Networks Thunder CGN Competitors

ACX Series Routers vs Juniper MX Series Routers

Compared 19% of the time

Huawei Enterprise Routers vs Juniper MX Series Routers

Compared 15% of the time

MikroTik Routers and Switches vs Juniper MX Series Routers

Compared 14% of the time

Cisco Enterprise Routers vs Juniper MX Series Routers

Compared 9% of the time

MikroTik Cloud Router Switch vs Juniper MX Series Routers

Compared 6% of the time

More Juniper MX Series Routers Competitors

Product Reports

No data available

Buyer's Guide

Juniper MX Series Routers

January 2026

Download Juniper MX Series Routers product report

Also Known As

No data available

Juniper Enterprise Routers, MX Series, Junos Address Aware

Overview

Extend IPv4 Connectivity
Solve IPv4 address exhaustion and extend the life of an IPv4 network infrastructure with carrier-grade NAT to ensure critical applications and services are always available and reliable.

Manage IPv6 Migration
Enable a smooth transition to IPv6 by supporting translation and tunneling between IPv4 and IPv6 networks.

Reduce TCO
High performance in a compact form factor results in lower OPEX and CAPEX through efficient rack space usage, lower power consumption and reduced cooling requirements.

A10 Networks

Juniper MX Series Routers are designed for high throughput with flexible MPLS configuration and robust policy management, offering reliability and scalability for enterprise needs. They feature seamless Cisco integration, strong performance driven by the Trio chipset, and user-friendly management.

Known for their exceptional performance, Juniper MX Series Routers enable enterprises and ISPs to expand network connectivity and efficiency. Their reliable hardware supports tasks like border routing and internet connectivity, catering to high-performance networking and automation. Trio chipset technology ensures stability, while interchangeable line cards maintain top-level performance. These routers are favored for their easy configuration and robust support, though improvements in pricing, VPN compatibility, and stronger DDoS protection are needed. Users seek additional cloud integration, enhanced security features, and expanded port options on models like the MX204.

What are the key features of Juniper MX Series Routers?

High Throughput: Ensures fast and efficient network data transfer.
Flexible MPLS Configuration: Adapts seamlessly to varied network environments.
Robust Policy Management: Provides extensive control over network traffic policies.
Seamless Cisco Integration: Simplifies operations for mixed equipment environments.
Trio Chipset Technology: Boosts performance and ensures network stability.
User-Friendly Interface: Facilitates easy configuration and management.

What benefits should users evaluate?

Scalability: Supports growing network needs without compromising performance.
Reliability: Offers consistent and dependable network operations.
Support and Documentation: Access to comprehensive resources for efficient management.
Performance: Maintains high levels of throughput and stability for enterprise needs.
Automation Support: Streamlines network operations for greater efficiency.

In industries like telecommunications and data centers, Juniper MX Series Routers are widely implemented to manage complex networking tasks such as VPNs, MPLS, and BGP deployments. Service providers often rely on these routers for backbone roles, benefitting from their performance and scalability to maintain robust and efficient network infrastructures.

Juniper

Sample Customers

Leucom Group

AARNet Pty Ltd, Allegro Networks, Atlantech Online, Availity, Baloise Insurance, Black Lotus, CATV, Blue Box

Buyer's Guide

A10 Networks Thunder CGN vs. Juniper MX Series Routers

December 2025

Free Report: A10 Networks Thunder CGN vs. Juniper MX Series Routers

Find out what your peers are saying about A10 Networks Thunder CGN vs. Juniper MX Series Routers and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our A10 Networks Thunder CGN vs. Juniper MX Series Routers report.

See our list of best Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT) vendors.

We monitor all Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.