Juniper vSRX Reviews

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.

Our primary use case for the Juniper vSRX solution is protection. We use it for Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS).

At the moment, we have about 120 vessels running under Juniper vSRX with 20 people per vessel. It's 2400 users. For deployment and maintenance, we have nine people.

We don't use anything extra on the production side. We would like to increase usage. We are going to put an inner portfolio on more than 20,000 vessels. 

We plan to put all of them under the same umbrella with Juniper vSRX.

The features we found most valuable are using the IDS and IPS during protection. For prevention, the application filtering feature is great, fantastic.

Up to the point we have used it now, there is no need for anything extra in the product.

The stability of the solution is very good. It's very stable.

Juniper vSRX is very scalable and easy to use. The difference is that we are always using it. The scalability is the main reason why we got it. 

We evaluated quite a lot of products before we took on this station. It's expensive.

The technical support is very good. They are very fast. They are our partners. It's in their benefit to help us work efficiently. They are earning money on it.

The initial setup is straightforward. Our deployment took three months. We had to put it together with many adjustments for the system to work together.

We used our partner Teresa for the installation of Juniper vSRX.

We evaluated the IDS and IPS without considering application filtering. It is easy to connect Juniper vSRX to the vessels. We have vessels that lead to connectivity.

Our network is very limited. One of the most important details with Juniper vSRX is that we can collect all of the updates in one single place and then push it over to the vessel. 

This was something very important to us in production.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 10. When you've got a 10, there is nothing to improve. There's nothing to add. The pricing still needs some improvement.

We use it for our network and VPN.

We have a lot of field users. Using this tool, they can get authenticated into the system. Instead of going through multiple steps to bring up client information, it is just the click of a button on a mobile application, then they can get authenticated.

The authentication part is seamless and easy for people. They can use their mobile phones and everything to get authenticated. 

Right now, we are going through issues and problems where the product gets dropped with the connection or during the authentication initial phase. While it could be our problem, we would like to see more stability in this area.

The stability needs improvement.

We have more than 5000 field agents. From our perspective, we are okay with scalability at this time.

Juniper vSRX was a replacement product for something called Network Connect that we were using before. It seems much easier for the clients to log into it.

We are using both the on-premise and AWS versions. They are used for different purposes, so I can't compare them.

Our primary use case is for firewall and network security

It does everything that we need it to do.

• Easy to maintain.
• Easy to use.
• Easy to set up.

It is easy for me to go in and update settings, make changes, or add/remove rules or security. 

Also, it works. That is the biggest thing.

The user interface could always be better. They could make it simpler and more intuitive. While it is pretty good now, they could always make improvements.

We don't put that much stress on it, but it is very stable. I don't think we have ever had an issue with it crashing or going down.

Our college is small, so we have a smaller environment. However, it appears like it would scale easily. There are other larger colleges who use Juniper using the same system and setup that we do with thousands of faculty and staff instead of the hundreds that we have.

I have not contacted technical support.

It is not that costly.

We also evaluated Cisco, but we had a good experience with Juniper in the past. Our rep with them would come out and talk to us about things routinely. Thus, we already had a good relationship with them.

It works for us and has worked for other colleges and universities.

We use just the on-premise version of the product. We are not on AWS yet. I'm looking forward to integrating this solution into AWS soon.