Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

We primarily use Juniper SRX for two functions: site-to-site VPN and VPN for Easy Connect. The VPN provides security for remote work. We also use it for a firewall.

One of Juniper SRX's most valuable features is the site-to-site VPN. 

I would like to have a better web UI for administration. Juniper could simplify the web UI and make it more compatible with mobile devices. In particular, I'm thinking about our remote offices, where we don't have dedicated IT personnel. Let's say someone from the office staff was working via smartphone. If the web UI were more compatible with mobile devices, the administration could manage IT support from a team that is not in their location. It would make it simpler for small companies to deploy these devices. I also think the documentation is lacking.

I've been using Juniper SRX for seven years.

In terms of stability, I would rate SRX nine out of 10. For performance, we're usually satisfied, so about eight of 10.

This model of SRX we use is not a scalable solution. It's near its maximum capacity for encryption, traffic, and features.

Juniper support was great. When we reported a critical issue, they responded with recommended fixes within four hours.

Regarding customer service, we prefer working with a company that lets us directly purchase their solutions worldwide using something like an internet store, so we don't have to go through partners or dealers. We currently deliver such solutions in many countries, and each country has its local vendor. 

Sometimes we can't rely on this delivery method because we haven't tried it yet in these countries, so it's not reliable to open new offices in foreign countries due to some restrictions, regulations, and price administration for networks. This is a problem. So it would be great if Juniper could deliver equipment that we purchase directly on some internet shop instead of using a local dealer or service center.

Deploying SRX was straightforward because our environment was ready for it. We used our own IT team and deployment took about two weeks. It was a normal step-by-step process. As for maintenance, SRX usually requires software updates and nothing more. We've installed it in a suitable environment in the server room, so it doesn't require a lot of additional maintenance.

I'm not sure we are satisfied fully with the pricetag of Juniper SRX, but we understand why the dealer prices it this way. Still, we are not satisfied when we try to get prices for competitor products. Sometimes, it can be tense like this.

When you consider performance, price, and features, maybe Juniper is not so cost-effective compared to other solutions like MikroTik. On the one hand, MikroTik might have better performance and much more features than Juniper. However, Juniper is more reliable and has different approval, certifications, and standard capability features. MikroTik does a lot of the same functions but doesn't have the same certifications. MikroTik is less expensive. The device price of MikroTik is $200 versus $6,000 with SRX. In the end, we chose SRX because it was on a list of solutions approved by our remote parties. One of our customers needed to have this type of VPN to work with our company.

I rate Juniper SRX eight out of 10. I recommend it. There are two vendors — Juniper and Cisco— that we recommend for the production environment of any kind of build.

I work with firewalls. We have a team to manage them. We also have services that are related to hosting and we provide solutions related, and we set up everything.

We manage their connections remotely.

Every firewall has different use cases. Juniper is zone-based and the architecture matters. It offers convenience for the users to have remote access and ensures a secure and safe authentication.

When compared to Palo Alto, Juniper is a better choice when it comes to the enterprise network and connectivity.

Juniper SRX is pretty fast to configure and make it work.

Once it is configured, it's fine, which is not the case with other firewalls.

Juniper is user-friendly. It works perfectly well.

Upgrades are available.

Juniper SRX has a roll-back feature which is very interesting. As no one is perfect and mistakes do happen, we can roll it back to the previous configuration.

This solution can handle a lot. It's manageable when you know the parameters, the features, and the number of policies of your firewall.

The user interface is something that Juniper needs to improve. 

We have used many models of Juniper SRX. Based on the scale and the environment of the customer, we choose what is best for them.

Most of what we use are between the SRX300 and SRX345. These are the most commonly used series.

Simple, mid-scale establishments can use these models.

It is more or less stable. I prefer it for its stability as a firewall.

We are not a large team, we have 20 members in our company.

It's a scalable solution.

The support could be somewhat improved with Juniper.

We have also had firewalls from Palo Alto as well as FortiGate. I prefer Palo Alto, comparatively, it is better.

We find that the technical support with FortiGate is very slow. We are not able to get the proper help in spite of having the AMC add-on.

It is not at all complex. It's easy. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The maintenance requirements are based on the customer's agreement and whether it is to manage the firewall and maintain it.

It is best suited to an enterprise-level, as the mid-range companies may find that the cost is not affordable.

Previously, we had an implementation plan for a client. We verified the different types of firewalls and the support and how it works. We evaluated Cisco, Juniper, and FortiGate.

From the previous recommendation, we saw all of the technical aspects of the different firewalls. Based on that information, we were able to clarify and come to a conclusion and chose the firewall that was best suited to the client's needs.

Recently, because of the price, we have moved to Juniper.

Most of the AMCs are costly.

We choose our solution based on many reasons. One is the cost, which is the primary reason, and the second is the performance. Performance in this context includes how it loads, and how it handles. Based on these parameters, we choose the firewalls.

At this time, we are not using cloud-based features. It is something we anticipate in the future. We are not using Juniper cloud-based. When you have a setup at an architecture level, they will not have drastic changes until, or unless they are financially stable and they want a higher level of architecture to be implemented.

The change will not happen suddenly, even if you have an enterprise core application it won't be done in a different way. There will be a roadmap done. We also have the SSG firewalls.

There is a lot of work in the pipeline, it might take more time to change the firewalls that need upgrading.

When we use so many products, we have to follow the hierarchy. We don't commonly work in a UI environment.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It is good, and it is faster and easier to maintain. The price is not bad and when compared with Cisco, I find that Juniper is better. It's a good product for enterprise companies. 

We have a custom-built model that makes it very simple to migrate.

I would rate Juniper SRX an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used in two ways: to protect our three data centers and servers. It works at protecting both areas from malicious attacks.

We have worked with the solution for a while and therefore have become quite versed in it. We're comfortable with its tech and have a good understanding of how best to use it. 

The initial setup was easy.

In terms of usability, there are good forums on offer and they've got a lot of technical documentation for everything. 

Technical support is good. They quickly respond, and they even have local help here. They can actually give you an answer very quickly.

The solution has been stable over the years.

The capacity can be limiting. We have outgrown its capacity. You can only scale up to a certain extent, depending on the device purchased. 

There are cheaper options on the market.

The reporting and alerts could be improved. If you had alerts, whereby you can have things like intrusion detection systems quickly alerting the security managers of a breach would be helpful. 

They need to work on the user interface. Most tasks are done by commands, and if you don't have experience using the command line, it's terrible. They should make it easier.

We've only been using the latest solution for a few days. It's quite new to us. It replaced a previous version, which we had for five years. 

The stability is quite good. It's very reliable as long as your power is okay. It's a good device and good software and is a great piece of equipment, however, if your power has any issues, then you are likely to lose it after power surges.

Scalability is limited and you need the right sizing. In our case, our device has reached the end of life, and there are no more plugins that we can actually use.

We're quite satisfied with technical support. They are very helpful and responsive and there is good documentation.

We've also used Cyberoam, which is now Sophos. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. It's an easy process and not very difficult or complex. 

The license we have now is perpetual, however, going forward, with a newer version, we're looking at annual or bi-annual licensing. 

The cost is not cheap or overly expensive. It's middle of the road. 

We are just a customer.

It's a good device overall. I'd recommend it to other users and companies. As long as a customer is buying something that is supported and has a good lifespan, they should be happy.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

The solution can scale very well.

It's quite a user-friendly solution and I find it to be easy to navigate. 

The initial setup is very easy.

The stability has been quite good. 

Technical support has been quite helpful. 

The pricing has become very reasonable and we find them to be competitive.

The reporting is lacking. it's an aspect of the solution I would like to see improved upon in the future. 

The solution isn't as present in the market as Cisco and Fortigate. They need to do a better job of marketing themselves and becoming more visible. 

I've used the solution for a number of years at this point. I started using it around 2012 or 2013. It's been a while. 

The stability has been good. Over the years there have been no issues with crashing or freezing and there are no bugs or glitches. 

The product scales very well. It's not a problem if your company needs to expand it. 

In our office, we have about 120 people protected under Juniper. However, we have proposed it to many customers and some clients use it as well. Some of them are quite sizeable businesses. 

We've used technical support in the past and have been satisfied with the level of service they provide. they are helpful and responsive. 

I'm also familiar with Cisco and Fortigate.

The initial setup was straightforward. This is due to the fact that we have a decent Juniper-certified team.

We are integrators and can install it for our clients if they need us to. 

We pay an annual licensing fee. 

In the past, they would sometimes be more expensive than Fortinet, however, we have noticed that their pricing has come down a bit and now they are very reasonable. 

We are a reseller and systems integrator. We are also a customer. 

In the office, we have Juniper SRX firewalls. We have not activated the SD-WAN.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall. 

We use Juniper SRX to create VPN tunnels to the data center.

I like that Juniper SRX is easy to use, scalable, and stable with good performance.

In the next release, I would like to have a better web interface. It needs to be more user-friendly. Right now, you can only access many features through the console.

We have been using Juniper SRX for about five years.

Juniper SRX is a stable solution that performs well.

Juniper SRX is a scalable solution.

Technical support is brilliant, but I guess you have to pay for it.

The initial setup was straightforward. The time it takes to implement this solution depends on the complexity of the configuration.

We implemented this solution by ourselves.

In general, their price definitely couldn't be cheaper. 

I would recommend this solution to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Juniper SRX a ten.

We use it for the firewall.

It's fine, and it's good. It's very stable.

It could be more secure.

I have been using Juniper SRX for about five years.

Very stable. These firewalls are stable.

We had Cisco, but when comparing the price, Juniper SRX was cheaper.

I would recommend this solution to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Juniper SRX an eight. 

I used this solution in my previous organization. We used it to protect data centers and some private resources.

What I like the most about Juniper is that they have the same CLI on all routers, switches, and firewalls. If you have worked with any Juniper device, such as a Juniper router, you will be able to work with an SRX, which is really cool. It is a nice experience to work with every device of Juniper, not only firewalls.

As a networking person, I don't really have any major issues with this device. Based on my experience of using it in a cluster, it could be more stable. I had an incident when one of the SRXs in a cluster couldn't learn ARP.

It is a good solution, but firewalls don't seem to be an area of development for Juniper. They are focusing on data centers, routers, and switches, not firewalls.

Its stability isn't bad. In two years of supporting this device, I had only one issue. I had an incident when one of the SRXs in a cluster couldn't learn ARP, and the request didn't move between cluster units. I had to fix this manually, which wasn't really cool because I had to get up in the night because of this incident.

We weren't using it in a high load infrastructure.

I didn't really need their support. I only needed their support for the demo of their CSR product because it wasn't working as mentioned in their documents.

Its initial setup is straightforward. If you are a network engineer with some experience, you will be able to configure it easily. I have configured many Juniper firewalls, and it was really easy. Configuring the device isn't a problem. The main problem is preparing the environment and the infrastructure for your device.

It took more than one year to use this solution in production because I used a lot of features in my demo infrastructure, such as VSRX, to demonstrate this solution to potential and existing customers.

I like the SRX series. In fact, I like all products from Juniper. 

I would rate Juniper SRX an eight out of ten.

This product is our network firewall.

The Juniper SRX series is easy to use.

The interface could be more user-friendly.

I have been using Juniper SRX for a few years.

I have never needed to contact Juniper technical support.

I have not been involved in the installation of this device.

There is a licensing fee.

This is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for protection and security. We primarily use the solution for an internal firewall.

If you require any particular rule that needs to be modified, any particular rule that needs to be fine-tuned, the solution will give you all the details regarding how to fine-tune the policy, including the destination, IP, et cetera. You can easily fine-tune whatever you need to in Juniper. It's easy to implement and meets our patience threshold. 

The dashboard is very helpful. It's extremely useful in terms of putting the necessary policies in place.

I handle the operation part. I'm just putting policies, et cetera, on Juniper. For tasks such as those, it is very easy and it is a comfortable, straightforward process.

The solution has proven to be quite stable.

Technical support has been quite helpful.

I've noticed that the management interface could use some updates and upgrades.

The dashboard can be updated. 

The reporting could be more robust and in-depth.

I've looked into the Check Point firewall a bit and I've found that its anti-spoofing is a good feature. Juniper should consider adding that as a feature.

I've only just begun to really use the product. I only have one year of experience so far. It's still new to me. Therefore, it's hard to make any notes on any features or improvements, as I'm still familiarizing myself with everything. I need time to compare it to other firewalls, and I have not gone through the process of doing that just yet. I need more time.

I've been dealing with the solution for about one year. It hasn't been that long. 

It is really stable. I've seen Juniper work well in my other companies as well. It is very good, in terms of stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is reliable.

Overall, the scalability is very good. A company should have no trouble with scaling if it would like to do so.

We have about 2,000 users currently. They cover various roles in our organization. It's not just used by a specific team.

The technical support on offer is very good. Whenever I would have some issues, they have responded on time and they have really good knowledge of the product. We've been quite satisfied overall.

We use a variety of solutions, including Cisco and Check Point.

I did not handle the initial implementation. That was handled by someone else. Therefore, I can't really share any insights on the process. I do not know if it was easy or difficult, or how long it really took to deploy.

I do not handle the licensing arrangements. That's handled by management. Therefore, I can't speak to how much it costs the organization or how often we pay a licensing fee.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

In general, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine. We've been quite satisfied with its capabilities so far. 

I'd recommend the solution, however, it really depends on what an organization needs. There are various factors, like pricing, for example, that should be taken into account when looking at solutions.

Many customers of ours use Juniper firewalls — almost 30 enterprise companies in total. 

We have explored perimeter security; however, we have not had the chance to group all the security solutions from Juniper. In relation to perimeter firewalls, we have had a good experience. We have been working with Juniper for about 10 years now, and I think it's a good brand in the market in general. In the past, they had some issues involving integration with different products in the portfolio, but currently, I think they have solved that issue. Speaking about our experience with perimeter firewalls, we feel comfortable. We think they have a good interface, the operating system is good, it's robust. It has plenty of great features, and the relation between the cost and benefits works for our business.

They recently improved this solution. Currently, I feel comfortable with Juniper in general.

Support is good. We speak to them quite often.

The initial setup was very simple.

Currently, we plan on exploring more products and solutions geared toward cloud security.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Juniper SRX a rating of nine.