Juniper vSRX Reviews

We are a solution provider and the vSRX is something that we have included in one of the solutions that we sell to our customers for cyber security protection. Our initial deployment was on-premises at one of our customer's sites.

We were so happy with vSRX that we expanded its usage. We design and prepare solutions for ships, and we have included the vSRX as part of our cyber security solution for them. It is still an on-premises deployment, although the premises is a vessel.

This product is primarily used for its UTM functionality. We collect all of the logs that the UTM produces onboard each ship and bring them onshore. At that point, we reevaluate them. We give full accessibility to the customers, allowing them to see what the UTM is doing on their ships.

This product has improved the way our organization functions because prior to implementing it, vessels did not have this technology. There was nothing equal to it.

The most valuable features are application filtering, content filtering, the intrusion prevention system (IPS), and definitely the application firewall.

We use the SSL inspection capability, which we really like a lot.

The reporting can be improved.

I have been working with Juniper vSRX for three years.

Stability-wise, it is very good. This product is very stable and it's proven to be a very good tool for us. It is used extensively because it is part of the ship's main operations. All of the data that goes in or out of the vessel is inspected by it.

This is quite a scalable product. It is easier to scale than the SRX because it's virtual. It's easier to assign more resources than it is to add more hardware.

We have installed this solution on approximately 450 ships with about 20 people in each of them. Many more of our customers have ships and we expect to surpass 1,000 installations within the next two or three years.

The technical support is very good.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. A product did not exist for our customers' ships, so we introduced it using the vSRX.

We have also implemented the Juniper SRX and the vSRX takes a little bit longer because the design is more complex. From the design phase to implementation and deployment, it takes between two and three days to complete.

We had a partner do the implementation for us. The maintenance is also done by a partner. We have a lot of vSRX devices out there, and we are not actively maintaining them ourselves, so we have our partner to take care of it.

We did not evaluate other options before implementing this solution. We are Juniper SRX users and we were so happy with that product that we decided the only solution had to be the vSRX.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is that the whole thing is about the design. If you design it well, consider how you should introduce it into your organization, and have a good implementor to ensure that it integrates well into the platforms you already have in place, then you won't have any problems with the implementation phase. Having a good integrator is very important.

Feature-wise, this product isn't missing anything. There is nothing that we have asked for that isn't there. Our only complaint is about the reporting.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It is deployed on the customer site, and we manage the firewalls on this side. It's a very useful solution. It is used on-premise at the customer site. It is useful for management, and the configuration is rather easy, as well.

As I said, it meets our requirements, so I think the product works okay.

I would like to see an activity sensor for malicious content or sensor for viruses and malware.

We have used the Juniper vSRX firewalls for two or three years.

Yes, of course. It is stable.

I think that the system is scalable, but not on the customer side because there are not that many switches, so you don't have to scale this side.

The Juniper technical support fulfilled our requirements.

We used Fortinet firewalls as well as Juniper vSRX. We did not use them to the extent that we have used Juniper vSRX.

The deployment of the Juniper vSRX is easy.

The process is done by my colleagues, so I am not involved in this process. As I understand it is easy and not a time-consuming process.

I think the virtual solution is a good price. But of course, it depends on other features, solutions, and licenses.

It depends on on the environment and work requirements so it is hard to give advice. I would rate Juniper vSRX at a seven on a scale of ten.

We are Value Add Resellers and we provide the Cloud for our customers.

We set up Amazon Web Services as the cloud for our customers.

It's standard, with standard routing.

Juniper vSRX has everything at the moment; they are covering it all and getting into automation, which is great.

The dashboard, customization, API, and pricing are good.

VPN access is an area that needs improvement.

I have been using Juniper vSRX for four years.

This is a product that I have been using it ever since it was released.

This product is very stable.

Juniper vSRX is scalable. 

We have four users in our organization.

Technical support has been very supportive.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We did not use a vendor team, reseller, or an integrator. The implementation was done in-house.

The pricing is reasonable.

I can recommend Juniper vSRX to others who are looking at implementing it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Juniper vSRX to provide security for our customers and our users.

The solution as a whole is good, but it requires knowledge to use it properly. We know this solution well; we know all of its configurations and little secrets that inexperienced users may not be aware of. It's a very powerful solution and the firewalls function with high performance. The configuration is also great.

I have been using Juniper vSRX for a couple of years now.

Juniper vSRX is stable.

This solution is scalable, but I think it could be more scalable. It is possible to extend the firewall, but the firewall model could be bigger. 

Juniper supplies us with great customer support. We are very satisfied with them. 

The initial setup was easy.

As a customer, the pricing is good for us.

I would recommend Juniper vSRX. It works well for us. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Juniper vSRX a rating of eight. We experienced some technical issues during implementation; if they were corrected, I would give this solution a rating of nine or ten.

My primary use case for Juniper is to allow traffic for each team to reach servers on our other sites. I allow some source addresses to reach some destination addresses with some applications with HTTP, HTTPS, and SSH, to reach the service for each team.

Juniper is more flexible with the commit check and the commit confirmed command. The design of the forwarding and contract plan in the operating system is very important for the performance when we have very big traffic.

We worked with Cisco's support and Juniper's support and there are some differences, to be honest, Cisco is more available and is more competent at addressing our cases. So that is something negative about Juniper but otherwise, the architecture of Juniper's OS is flexible and scalable and technically Juniper is good.

The GUI is really bad. Cisco's is more advanced with their ASDM platforms. Cisco has more advantages.

I have been using this solution for more than two years. 

We also used Cisco. There are some differences in the command-line interface.

I would rate Juniper an eight out of ten. In the next release, I would like to see an enhanced GUI, graphic user interface, because the graphic user interface is very bad.

They should also discard some existing commands that we have to delete before the commands. Cisco is more practical.

I would recommend Juniper because they have a very good product. Especially, the 5800 product is a very good product for an internet service provider.

The primary use case of this solution is to load traffic for our RH team so that they can connect to our servers on our other sites. 

I load source addresses to connect to the destination address with applications such as HTTP, HTTPs, and SSH to connect the servers to the RH team.

The flexibility of the commit check and the commit confirmed commands is very good. The design of the forwarding plane and the control plane in the operating system is very important in performing when we have a large amount of traffic.

The architecture of the OS in Juniper is very good. It's flexibility, scalability, and the technicality are also good.

The support can be improved. 

The GUI needs to be improved, as Cisco is more advanced with their ASDM platform.

In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to the GUI because it isn't very good.

I would like them to discard some of the existing commands because we have to delete them. It should be more practical.

I have been working with Juniper for more than two years.

The versions that I have worked with are the SRX 550, 3600 and 5800.

This solution is scalable.

I have dealt with Cisco's Technical support as well as the Technical support from Juniper, and there are some differences. Cisco is more available, and the degree of competence regarding our case is better.

We have used both Cisco and Juniper products. When comparing them, there are differences with the command line interface. Cisco is more advanced.

After some research, I think that the cost of Juniper is more than Check Point, Palo Alto, and Fortinet. 

I would recommend Juniper because they have a good product, especially the 5800 version. 

This is a good product for internet service providers.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My company is an IAP so we use the solution for virtual security to segregate work.

There are a few valuable features that offer very good quality on the solution. Especially NetScreen. We used to use NetScreen for the product line. It was a very mature solution, very robust, easy to configure, easy to manage, etc. It made it easy to do everything. 

We have some weird errors and some weird behavior on the solution occasionally. The device gets buggy without anyone touching it. It would work and then suddenly stop. Sometimes you need to just move the cards out and restart it again, and it will work. The solution itself, the hardware and the software, there must be some bugs that need to be dealt with. 

We are using high-end devices. For the high-end devices, all the features are there; we don't need more features. What we need are for the features we have to work exactly as we want them to. Especially on the IT desk. There's something wrong between the hardware and the software. As I mentioned, some hardware is not working correctly in some integrations, and I'm not sure why. 

Technical support is very bad. They never respond to any ticket you open, although we pay for the support. 

The initial setup was a little bit complex.

We used a consultant to assist with implementation. In retrospect, we probably could have handled it ourselves.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

It seems that most of the problems were the device from management and not from support.  We would spend a lot of time with support trying to solve the problems we had. We didn't resolve it because it was a problem from the device and management. The technical support did not seem to help.

I've talked to people that say Juniper now, as a device, can be a solution for a data center, but in the past, I have not seen this as being possible.

We currently have about 10,000 users on the solution, but we are moving to the cloud, so I don't think we plan on increasing usage.

We are not satisfied with technical support. We've had a lot of problems with them not being able to solve our issues.

We did the original setup about ten years ago, so I can't recall how straightforward or complex the implementation was.

When we started with vSRX we came over from NetScreen. With vSRX We had a lot of problems and management was very hard to work with. It's not so very user-friendly. Before we had NetScreen 5400 and it was much better.

We're in the process of migrating away from Juniper onto Fortinet.

For us, it was not the correct solution for our data center.

I would rate the solution six out of ten.

I use the solution for network authentication, what you use while accessing the network. In general, controlling the traffic going inside the enterprise and off it.

I find the VPN and the cluster the most valuable features.

The syndication or domain controllers, quick policies, and user rules - like being able to see the IP source and destination could be improved. This feature already exists in Palo Alto.

They really need to improve the GUI.

The stability is getting better. It has got some bugs.

The scalability is good. It's very flexible, but the problem is the GUI is not very easy to use.

They have good technical support but we very rarely use technical support. We go through vendors.

We previously used Cisco.

The initial setup was very straightforward. There was no problem. The initial deployment took about one hour. One person is enough for deployment and maintenance.

I implemented the solution myself.

In Saudi Arabia, Juniper has a problem with marketing. They're less well known. A lot of companies are changing or going with Palo Alto.

With the GUI, the firewall is not easy to use. It doesn't cover all the features. Juniper should enhance the GUI, and make it easier to use. Both the firewall and virtual security are hard to use. It's not easy to configure it and not friendly to users.

I would advise for those thinking about using the product, to make sure they learn as much as possible, and also look to use a redundancy.

I would rate this solution seven out of 10.

I primarily use it as a firewall for our customers. It's much faster to deploy a power source. If you need to deploy a firewall in the cloud of software, it's much easier and much faster than deploying the office firewall in a rush. That's our primary usage, fast deployment of firewalls for customers.

We just use three or four features. There are several advanced features, that we are not using at the moment.

The stability could be improved.

For the moment I think it has all of the features I need. The only thing I'd like to see is the ability to create firewalls. That's the only feature I lack. Also, when you need to upgrade and when you need to reboot it, there's some downtime, and I'd like to be able to upgrade it without downtime.

The early version, the 15 version, was very stable, but we've found when we go to higher versions we have the features but the stability lacks a little bit. It's pretty stable. For example, it's stable, but when you want to diminish features it can be unstable and sometimes we need to roll back to earlier versions.

It's very scalable. It's very easy to deploy, one instance per customer or per instance needed.

We have very close contact with technical support, so if we have a problem we can contact them directly. It's a good relationship. They are very good.

We used Palo Alto, Fortinet and One IP. Our main focus is on Juniper material.

The initial setup was straightforward. It's not very complex. Deployment takes about ten minutes. In the beginning, it was half an hour, but now we are deploying vSRX in ten minutes. At the moment, for maintenance, we use just one junior network engineer. It's all automated. In the beginning, we had two to three people working on the deployment.

We implemented the solution ourselves.

Because we use the attached features we just buy perpetual licenses for one-year or three years just for the bandwidth.

I would recommend the solution and suggest you test it. It's a good product if you have a chance to work with it, if it fits right in your environment, it's really good to see what it can do.

I would rate this solution at 8.5 out of 10. I would rate it as a 10 if I had the ability to create a highly available firewall and if there was more stability in the new features.