Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

Currently, we are using the solution as our data center firewall.

Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a stable solution. I am confident about the solution from a security perspective because it is difficult to penetrate.

Juniper SRX Series Firewall has to improve its web content site, like web filtration.

I have been using Juniper SRX Series Firewall since 2015.

Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a stable solution.

Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a scalable solution.

Technical support is always available, and I have had no issues with them. When I raise a ticket, they frequently join the session and resolve the issues.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is bad and ten is good, I rate the solution's technical support nine and a half out of ten.

The solution is quite easy to install.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of hours.

We have seen a return on investment with the solution because it provides all the security features required on your network, and it's not easy to penetrate.

In my opinion, the Juniper SRX Series Firewall is cheaper than other products. We have a five-year license for the solution in one go.

Currently, we are using the solution as a data center firewall, but we previously used Juniper on all my segments. Since Juniper doesn't have any web content or web filtration, we moved to Fortinet for the internet segment. Otherwise, Juniper is quite okay.

The solution is easy to maintain and monitor. We have moved from SRX550 to SRX1500. Its uptime for the last three months from the deployment day is working fine. The solution's management interface is quite user-friendly for configuring policies and rules.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Customers use the solution in a cluster configuration to secure the network.

The VPN feature is quite useful, as well as the IPS. The firewall is very good.

If we need to define our user system from an anti-spam perspective, we can constantly update the antivirus. We need a subscription for such updates. It helps improve our security generally.

The solution can scale.

It is stable and reliable.

It is reasonably priced.

It would be ideal if the solution could use cloud services to help update signatures or threat prevention systems. 

There might be limitations with the product, depending on the hardware we use. We need to ensure we choose the right hardware if we want more throughput. We'd like to have more control over certain parameters and over the hardware.

They could include some features that help prevent or fight DDoS attacks.

I've used the solution for more than five years. 

I'd rate the stability eight out of ten. It is stable enough. 

The solution is scalable. I'd rate the scalability seven out of ten. 

It depends on how big the project is and how many branch offices there are. We might need more devices if it is bigger. We'd also need to use templates for all branches so that it is configured uniformly. 

We tend to provide the solution for small and medium-sized companies. I've configured it for 30 or 40 clients. 

I haven't had any issues. I've only opened two or three tickets. It's a stable solution. I haven't used support too much. I'm able to solve issues myself mostly.

Sometimes there are delays in response or solving the issue.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. I'd rate the process eight out of ten in terms of ease of implementation.

The deployment time depends on which features we use. Configuring the solution may take two to three hours; however, if more modifications are needed by the client, it may be longer. It depends on the technical requirements of the company.

Firstly, I needed to update the operating system. I checked the recommendations and prepared some configurations. 

The pricing is okay. It's moderate. I'd rate the pricing five out of ten. 

I'm more of a technical person, not in sales. I do not know the exact cost of the solution. I'm not sure if there are extra costs associated with the product beyond the licensing fees.

We're a Juniper partner.

I have used various versions of the solution, including the 300, 645, and 1500.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. It's a reliable solution. However, maybe, when we use the big box model, the pricing is reasonable.

Juniper is a highly flexible platform, and you get more bang for your buck compared to a Cisco product.

The centralized management platform could be improved.

Juniper devices are highly reliable. I haven't had to reboot some of these devices in five years. 

Juniper SRX firewalls are scalable. 

Compared to Cisco support, I would rate Juniper seven out of 10. It varies depending on who you get. 

Neutral

Setting up Juniper firewalls is straighforward if you have experience. You need some CLI experience. Configuring firewalls with a GUI is much easier than using the Juniper platform.

The deployment time depends on the size of the environment. I worked for a hospital system where we deployed a pair and used them as a firewall. It was relatively easy to deploy once we had a plan to bring the services in one by one as opposed to connecting the host of the hospital to us.

Juniper devices are more affordable than Cisco products. 

I rate Juniper SRX Series Firewalls nine out of 10. I recommend getting a centralized management solution because managing Juniper firewalls can be messy without it. 

We primarily use the solution as a firewall. We are using a two-tier firewall to protect the internal network.

This brand is one of the top three solutions in terms of firewall protection. 

The performance has been very good overall. 

We've been pleased with its overall security capabilities. 

The setup is pretty straightforward. 

It's stable and reliable.

The solution can scale. 

We'd like to better understand the roadmap of the firewall. 

The latest firewalls tend to have a short lifecycle. 

We'd like to improve the stability and the kill rate. 

The pricing can be a bit high.

I've used the solution for more than eight years. I have used the solution for quite a while so far. 

The stability is excellent. I'd rate it eight out of ten. It's very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is pretty good. We can scale a bit. I'd rate the ability to expand seven out of ten. 

We have about 2,000 users on the solution currently. 

We do not plan to increase usage. 

We've used technical support very few times. They are fine. they respond. It's pretty standard. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and simple. No matter the brand, the setup, and configuration are very similar. Therefore, if you have some prior experience with firewalls, you should be fine handling the implementation. 

Including the configuration process, the solution only takes an hour or two to deploy.

Normally, we do a POC before deploying the solution fully in order to test everything out. 

We have around four people who can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. 

We handled the setup ourselves with the assistance of a consultant.

We have witnessed an ROI while using this product.

We pay a monthly licensing fee. Normally, it is a year subscription. The cost is a bit high.

We are constantly evaluating other options. If we find there are issues, we proceed to the next brand and consider that one. 

We are using the latest version of the product.

I'd recommend the product to others. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are using Juniper SRX for general protection. We are not using those next-generation features, we are using them as layer 4 protection only.

On the enterprise side, we are currently only using traditional firewalling and do not have extreme-level features, such as IPS or UTM. This is because the team overseeing this area has been handed over to us in the last few years.

When we were doing the migration from the CRBV to ERV ports, at that particular time, we were working on the Juniper SRX.

The IPS functionality of Juniper SRX is useful in the telecom industry.

In comparison to other enterprise-level firewalls, such as Cisco FTD, Cisco has improved significantly. In the past, I believed that Juniper SRX was superior, but after seeing the advancements in the FTD platform, Cisco has better functionality. I have not recently explored Juniper SRX's next-generation firewall capabilities as we only use basic firewall filtering in our enterprise network.

Cisco had a more organized deployment process for their IPS feature. They would put the IPS in sensing mode in the network for a certain period of time and then the firewall would recommend certain policies to the administrator based on the network activity during that time. On the other hand, when I was working with Juniper SRX in 2013, we had to coordinate with the end user to gather information, such as source and destination IP addresses, and then build templates using Juniper SRX's provided templates. Additionally, Cisco had a more useful functionality when it came to security visibility and monitoring, while Juniper's STRM was very good in the past but now it's not for our use case. We are using other team's solutions to monitor our firewalls.

I have been using Juniper SRX for approximately 10 years.

From a hardware stability point of view, Huawei is a much better solution.

The stability of Juniper SRX is good, but there have been instances where it did not perform well. However, when compared to another vendor, such as Huawei, it has been deployed in our backbone for many years without any issues. This does not mean that Huawei is better than Juniper, in terms of functionality, Juniper is superior.

We have approximately 2,000 to 3,000 users using this solution in the enterprise.

If the Juniper SRX is deployed in a location where there is not enough room for growth or where there is a high traffic volume, such as when replicating data between two data centers, we may have to bypass the firewall to avoid capacity challenges. In general, the capacity is sufficient when initially deployed. However, if there is a forecasted change in the network usage, such as a customer's increased usage, we may have to plan for a swap or replacement of equipment that is near its end-of-support or end-of-life.

I rate the scalability of Juniper SRX a seven out of ten.

We have previously used other solutions, such as Cisco.

I am not sure of the exact reason we switched as I was not involved in the decision-making process at that time. However, I know that the IT backbone network was transitioning from a Cisco or legacy network to an MPLS network. The Juniper SRX solution was already in the deployment phase when I joined, with phases one to four already completed and it was in phase seven. The last phase, security, was yet to be deployed in the network. It was likely pre-decided before I joined and it could have been due to the MPLS deployment and migration from legacy. It is possible that they had won an RFP and based on that they were part of the network. The choice to change could have been based on functionalities or other factors, but it was a competition between different vendors to deploy the IP backbone.

The initial setup of Juniper SRX was simple. It took approximately one to two months to fully deploy.

The first step for the deployment was to share the requirements with the local team. Based on this, they proposed firewalls with sessions, net, and IPsec throughput. After deciding on the firewall, we went through the ordering process, which took longer than usual due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Once the firewall was delivered, it took about a month or two to install it on site, this included doing some joint ventures and having a partner from Juniper come and install the firewall in the rack and power it up. The initial integration took approximately three or four working days. After that, we started the migration process, which took an additional two-plus months.

We had help from the vendor for the implementation of the solution. We used one to two people for the process.

When we are in the deployment phase, we contact Juniper and they provide a budget-free code for our budgetary work.

Juniper mentioned that right now it does not support the Apstra fabric which we currently have in the network. They said that in the next version, there will be support for Juniper SRX. We might have to upgrade the firewall.

We do preventative maintenance on the devices.

I didn't explore the next-generation side of the Juniper SRX to recommend it, but I would recommend Palo Alto and Fortinet solutions.

I rate Juniper SRX a six out of ten.

We use Juniper SRX firewalls and site-to-site VPN connectivity.

Overall, in terms of uptime, they are very stable and reliable, which has benefited our organization.

The command line in Juniper SRX is extremely powerful, in my opinion. It's one of the best command lines I've used in networking products.

Both the web management and the graphical user interface are inadequate and should be improved. It's one of those situations. When it comes to Juniper, I would never use the GUI, instead, I would only use the command line.

I would like to see an improved user interface, and some kind of SD-WAN solution included, or perhaps a simpler way of configuring redundant links, such as WAN links.

I have been using Juniper SRX for 10 years.

We're working with the SRX240 and 210 models.

Juniper SRX is a very stable solution.

It should scale well, in my opinion. We are not a large company, but I don't anticipate any problems with Juniper SRX scalability.

We have approximately 300 employees, whose roles are in typical sales, accounting, operations, and transportation.

I'm not sure about increasing, but we do have other Juniper products, such as switches, that we would use.

Based on my experience with technical support, I would rate them a four out of five.

Positive

We have used other solutions. We decided to change to Juniper for something a little different. We have used some open-source firewalls in the past, and we wanted something a little more robust and fully supported in a real business class environment.

Coming from other vendors, the initial learning curve was a little steep. However, I would say that the actual setup was not that difficult.

I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.

I would recommend two people with networking knowledge, particularly in Juniper SRX, are enough to have it managed and supported.

One person could do it, but it helps to have a backup.

It only took a few weeks for them to all be deployed. It was really just a matter of timing and having a window for each location to have a little downtime to make the transition.

The deployment was completed in-house.

I would say that there has been a return on investment with Simply having the dependability, uptime, and additional security features.

Juniper SRX is reasonably priced.

We evaluated other products before choosing Juniper.

Other products had a more limited feature set, in my opinion. For some of the others, it was just the price. Juniper had a reasonable price and other reliable sources highly recommend it.

I believe that knowing exactly what you want to do is beneficial. There's a lot. It's a very flexible platform, and there's usually more than one way to accomplish your goals. Planning ahead of time is definitely beneficial. If you don't have a lot of experience, I'd recommend working with a partner if at all possible.

I would rate Juniper SRX an eight out of ten.

I use Juniper SRX Series Firewall for research purposes.

You can be very specific with what you can put in the solution. I can have the solution as my management interface. The ports are really versatile for their application and don't always have to be used for the purpose for which they were made.

When I was going to upgrade the OS, the solution didn't accept certain USB devices. So, I had to put in the OS using a trivial FTP server. Otherwise, the solution is really advanced. It's really hard to get a hold of the firmware for it. Even if you applied for customer support, getting to the software side is a little harder.

If you want to upgrade the OS, you have to do this by special pauses. You can't just upgrade from an old version to the newest one. You have to make middle landings.

I have been using Juniper SRX Series Firewall for two weeks.

Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a stable solution, but it depends on how you set it up. You can make the solution unstable if you want to, but it will be stable if you set it up correctly.

Juniper SRX Series Firewall is really scalable, but it depends on how you set up the network topology.

The solution's initial setup depends on what interface you use. If you use the J-Web, it's quite easy. If you do it by console, it isn't always clear what order you should be doing things on when you apply the settings. When you first come into the console, you might not know they're in the FreeBSD shell but not the Juniper OS.

The solution's deployment is actually ongoing. I had it up for once, but I upgraded it because it was a really old version of the OS. Currently, the biggest hurdle is that when you cross over to a new version, you have to occupy one port for management. In the previous version, I could select an in-line management instead of dedicated out-of-band management.

Now, I have to sacrifice one port for the management. It's not needed for my application, but now I am forced into having a management interface. I also noticed that several vulnerabilities have been discovered lately in the Juniper OS.

Juniper SRX Series Firewall is worth its money.

You should read all the release notes before you change the OS because you don't know what you're giving up and what new features you're getting. It's not always that the newest OS is the best for you. So, select the OS based on your specific deployment needs and not just to have the newest one.

Overall, I rate Juniper SRX Series Firewall an eight out of ten.

As a value-added reseller, we resell Juniper hardware to our clients. Its use cases are related to the standard network architecture. It is a part of the fabric that Juniper uses for their switching.

It is a part of the infrastructure when we're selling Juniper. That's what clients are familiar with and that's what they rely on. 

It does have its nuances in terms of deployment. There are always areas to make something easier or more intuitive or make the system auto-negotiate more with existing hardware.

I have been using this solution since it got launched. It has been around five years or so.

For the most part, it is no more difficult than anything else that's out there right now.

Most of the feedback that I've got from my clients related to Juniper's support is that their support is okay. It is not spectacular. It is just okay.

It is easy. It is pretty much plug-and-play. This is why people like Juniper.

Its price is comparable to the competition.

I would advise definitely taking some training if you're not really familiar with the interface or the GUI. Brush up on it before you dig into it because a lot of people know Aruba or Cisco, but you need to be familiar with it. Don't just buy it because you read some marketing material on it. You actually need to know how to deploy it.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.