Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

The primary use case of this solution is as a firewall and a security gateway. 

The most valuable feature is the support.

The user interface and the GUI need improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see mobile support.

I have been using Juniper SRX for ten years.

We are using various versions.

It's a stable solution.

Juniper SRX is scalable.

We have 10 users in our organization.

Technical support is perfect.

We have not used another product previously.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took three hours to deploy.

Juniper SRX does not require a lot of maintenance.

We did not implement it ourselves. We had help from technical support.

We plan to continue the usage of this program in the future.

This is a product that I can recommend to others who are planning to implement it.

I would rate Juniper SRX a ten out of ten.

We are using this product as our Firewall.

The configuration is difficult and it should be easier.

I have been using Juniper SRX for three years.

Juniper is stable and I haven't had any problems.

The hardware is scalable and we have about 500 users.

Juniper supports their products very well.

I have experience with Fortinet and Sophos and I found that the installation and configuration were easier with these solutions.

This product is easy to install but difficult to configure. It takes perhaps three hours to deploy.

I completed the deployment myself. There are three people who work on it, including two administrators and the head of Network Infrastructure.

We plan on buying an SRX370 within the next year.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We are a distributor and Juniper SRX is one of the products that we work with. The SRX is a service gateway device that serves two main functions. The primary function is as a firewall, and the second is for routing traffic.

It can serve as a branch firewall or data center firewall, as well as a next-generation firewall, based on the license.

Juniper SRX has many good features that suit a variety of customer requirements.

Performance is a strong point.

There are a lot of features that customers do not know about and I think that better documentation would help when it comes to learning how to use the product.

Technical support could be improved by adding local engineers.

I have been working with this product for a few months.

The Juniper SRX is very stable. Stability and performance are the strengths of Juniper products.

We have clients of all sizes for this product, from small businesses to service providers. It is very scalable.

I would rate the technical support at medium. The support is good, but other vendors have local engineers. This is something that could be improved.

The initial setup is straightforward and very easy. The length of time for deployment depends on the size of the solution.

Compared to other vendors, the pricing of this solution is good.

This is a product that I very much recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We leverage this as a firewall and for IT tech services. It's more of a firewall used in a router sorting device. I see major benefits from leveraging it like this.

This is a product on the customer side, not in our services. What I have identified so far is that, considering the complex deployment that the customer wanted to make, the scalability with the feature support that they already have, and its functionality provided, Juniper SRX was one of the better products available. It helped us to scale well with that product customer requirement because they wanted the IT side on a virtual router, with a firewall so it was integrated to work. Such a complex setup cannot be easily accomplished by just using a firewall. SRX actually helps us scale and integrate the product according to customer requirements. It also helped us with its routing capabilities which eased the cost, because otherwise I would have had to take a router and firewall, and then integrate it. With this, however, it was an integration of firewall and routing services all together in a single product. That was one thing that I loved about it.

IPS is something that I do not find valuable, but the other features are awesome. Firewall IP second router is good, but IPS needs to be worked upon.

IPS, or IDS services, need improvement. Their major problem is that you have to integrate it with MSN or web building services, you need to buy support for that and services but you cannot. The best thing that I see was a filtering service with custom categories that I can create. If I buy a license, I can integrate it with a different product, but their own web building services is poor. So they can improve web building services, as well as look for application awareness, and maybe, with IPS, they can have their own built-in services rather than integration with MSN for using IPS. There are three things that can be improved.

IPS is one that I would definitely want to be improved. I would also like SSL VPN to be integrated. Other than that, I guess it's doing a firewall, so I would say it's cool. Next in features, I would want that to be included, along with SSL VPN, if possible. Other than that for the product, I don't think there's a need for doing anything with this.

More than 7 or 8 years

It's cool. I would say it's one of the most stable services. Providing for redundancy is a bit challenging, but it actually is something that can be worked upon because they have a different concept of highway building, as opposed to general people doing stuff. I would say it is a good, stable product, except for the problematic part of it. If people are not aware of how to deal with it, it can be very cumbersome.

You can scale it well, but when you scale you need to take a product out to another one. On a scale level, it's a very good scalable product. It's a good firewall so if you pump it in high traffic, it will be able to adapt to it, unless and until you outgrow its throughput. Then you would either have to get a new model or maybe if you have to avert your firewall, you might have to upgrade it to a new version. So far it's a good product.

This was for a 1,000 user base.

You don't need extra staff to maintain the solution. Unless and until you have a problem of lags or circuit issues, I don't think you need extra staff. One SE should be fine with this product.

I think there will be future plans to increase usage and get more devices. We are also trying to leverage this into a cloud platform, so there would be some more usage.

The technical support or tech team is good. So far, when I worked with them, they have been able to resolve issues firmly. If they cannot do it, they connect you with someone you can work with, so they can just connect to the engineering team. Their data services is something which is really good.

However, their documentation is a bit more challenging. They have unsourced to work, like knowledge base articles and stuff, but they would need to work a bit more on the documentation to compare with Cisco documentation. That's something that they can improve on. They have good documentation. The documentations are clear, but there is not sufficient content available.

The initial setup was very simple. I would say it was the simplest one to date.

Deployment time depends on the solution. This was a very complex one, so it took us four weeks to get the most complexity out of it. I think taking a single deployment, it would not be more than a couple of hours. If you are already working with Juniper products, it would be a couple of hours. If you're not working with Juniper products, maybe a week, not more than a week.

I did the implementation myself, I don't normally take help but in scenarios where documentation is not available, I do go ahead and refer it out but this was simple. I don't think I needed the technical support staff, but I have worked with Juniper tech for certain scenarios in integrating this. It was tax-supported, non-profit services.

There was no additional licensing cost because there were no IPS services. It was just a firewall IP circuit router so they have the default licensing. We just need to renew the support yearly.

Our customer evaluated Palo Alto also. They liked it, and even integrated it, but the scalability requirements they had were an issue. They loved Palo Alto for the security services, but their requirement was routing and security in a single device. That's the reason they were not able to go with the Palo Alto services, but they chose Juniper.

If you're looking for a product that can give you routing as well as security services, and you're not looking for too much taxing on the security part, I guess this is a good product. If, however, you're looking for security services on a greater edge, maybe something like next-gen firewall features, referencing services, or IPS to a greater level, I would recommend going with other security products. If you want integration of both, you can use this, and maybe if you evaluate, or move forward with better services over a period of time and better models of that, maybe this is something that you can always look for both, routing as well as security services.

SRX is a security product that's not that good on security, but it's good at routing, so they actually balance out. I would rate them around six of ten. 

Cisco does one thing right. Cisco has AnyConnect so they can fully integrate SSL routing services. Previously Juniper used to have Pulse Secure and MAG devices. They sold it off to Pulse Secure, but maybe they could try to integrate SSL VPN with their products. Maybe that would help them increase market share.

I like the routing and firewall features.

The workplace management console needs improvement. It should be a little bit more developed. Also, the interface needs a bit more improvement.

If the solution would have an intuitive interface would be much better because the work-based interface is not so perfectly developed and it's not ideal. It's not complete yet, and it makes it difficult for beginners and first-time users of this solution. As it is, for new users, it would make it very difficult for them to deploy this solution. Otherwise, the rest is fine. There's no other problem with it.

In terms of stability, everything was okay except for one situation which happened about three years ago. There was an upgrade which was released. Once we got the upgrade on the software, it would crash and it wouldn't work as it had before, so we had to downgrade to the previous version. Once we started using that there was no problem.

Due to sanctions, we haven't used the technical support of the original company so the maintenance and everything is done by us.

We were using a different solution, a Microsoft solution. We were looking for a more affordable solution which would suit our needs.

The initial setup was difficult the first time. It was a little bit complicated, but after it was done, we've been using it just fine and there's no problem with the use. It was the first time we were using a firewall, the initial setup procedure took about one month to define all the zones. 

We extend the license yearly and the prices, because of the sanctions, are expensive and costs much more compared to other solutions. It's pricey compared to other locations where there are representatives and you can buy directly from them.

At the moment the solution satisfies our needs. There are no extra features that we need at the moment.

I would rate this solution 8.5 out of 10 because it seems to satisfy our needs. Everything seems good and works fine.

We primarily use this solution for data center segregation.

The features that are most valuable are the high-speed interfaces and MPLS.

The throughput when using features can be improved.

100-gigabit interfaces should be added into the next release because we'd like to adopt them.

The solution's stability is very good.

The scalability of the solution is limited.

We did use a different solution. The old boxes were at end of life.

The initial setup was complex because we have a complex network.

I find that the interfaces are okay. The big thing is performance. With all the features turned on it slows down.

The advice I would give to everyone is to specify a larger box than you think you need.

Due to the performance indications, I'd rate this product as a 7 out of 10.

I've found the security features, such as IDS and the VPN most valuable.

In terms of other features, I'd like to see a web filter, 10 point control, application control and DNA features in the next release.

We previously didn't use a different solution.

I would rate this solution a 7 out of 10.

The most valuable features in this solution are AppSecure and the IPsec VPN.

The solution previously had a Clientless SSL VPN, but it has been removed and I would like access to it again.

The GUI needs improvement. I can work fine with the command line (CLI), but new people would like a better user interface.

I would like to see an SSH VPN in the next release.

I am very satisfied with the stability of this solution.

We have more than one hundred users for this solution. They range from non-technical, Level 1 users, up to administrators, technical support staff, and expert-level users.

I am satisfied with their technical support. It is better than what I have experienced with some other solutions.

This is the first solution that we implemented.

I find the setup simple, given that I have been using it for ten years. The deployment is quite easy and fast.

The price of this solution is more than other products, but it's stable, and the technical support is better than I have seen with others.

The solution was in place before I joined the company, so I am unaware if we evaluated other solutions.

We have found this solution to be easy to implement and easy to use. It is a little more expensive than some products, but it is worth the investment.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.