Juniper vSRX Reviews

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 primarily use the solution as a firewall for security purposes in order to keep our organization safe.

In general, the entire security solution is great, from end to end.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

The solution works quite well. I can't think of any features that are lacking. I don't know where it could be improved.

Some people complain that the solution tends to have a steep learning curve. It could be because most people have basic familiarity with Cisco or other similar products and maybe have never worked closely with Juniper products. I don't find that it's a problem, however, I have heard this mentioned as an issue for some people.

We've been using the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches and doesn't seem to crash at all. Its performance is great. You can rely on it.

The solution can scale if you need it to. That's not a problem.

We do have plans to increase the usage of the product in the future.

We have technical experts who have helped us in the past. They were quite supportive. They were both responsive and knowledgable and we've been satisfied with eh level of service provided.

Before we started using Juniper, we used Huawei Firewall and its related services. We switched as we found that Juniper offered a much better service. From our perspective, everything about Juniper is better. Huawei is lacking in a few areas.

The solution isn't too complex to set up. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment, from beginning to end, takes about six months.

We had about 20 experts on the deployment project.

We used a solution provider to assist us with the implementation.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Juniper.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

We'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution an eight.

The command feature is valuable. The product provides restore and backup features, too.

The GUI is complex. The security feature must be improved.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. We have 1500 users.

The initial setup was easy. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. It took us six months to deploy the product.

The solution is pricey. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

I prefer Fortinet over Juniper vSRX. Fortinet provides more features.

I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We did a project for the government. We deployed the Juniper Firewall on their premises. The solution is used for the security purpose of client infrastructure security. There are three types of zones: zone-to-zone-based policy, IPS intrusion, and other policies implemented there.

The graphical unit is slow. Also, Juniper vendor shipping of UPM devices, support, Bandwidth shift, and other activities are very complex.

I have been using Juniper vSRX for six months.

Compared to the Palo Alto firewall and Fortinet firewall, Juniper has low stability. After deploying, I didn't face any challenges.

The solution is scalable. There's one client requirement to make an external firewall. There is no HA. We are focusing more on the user. We are working with Fortinet, Juniper, and Cisco teams to provide our clients with the best solutions. If the client is interested in Juniper, we implement that.

The initial setup is straightforward. For deployment, we are using some networking devices for the routing. I deployed it in the firewall inline mode and created some zones for security purposes.

People in Bangladesh, including the government and small businesses, have pricing issues.

Many customers are using Juniper routers and switches, which has prompted another team to work with Office 365. I am only working on the Juniper firewall part. The technical side is almost the same, and the function is similar with respect to other competitors. Juniper deployment is not very complex, but Cisco deployment is very complex.

I recommend having a price and other comparison with Palo Alto and others.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight 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 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.