Meraki MX Reviews

We deploy Meraki MX for our customers. If a customer needs a full wireless network or an upgrade, we'll right-size a firewall, like an MX67, depending on whether they need a wireless or cellular backup.

Typically, we deploy Meraki MX, which may accompany a Meraki switch, like MX120 or MX220, and we'll also include wireless access points. It all depends on what the customer needs. Typically, if we're going to put an MX firewall in, we layer that in along with a Meraki switch and Meraki access points as well.

The solution's most valuable feature is the Meraki dashboard, which is a single pane of glass. The dashboard allows us to see and manage all our Meraki customers. Since it's cloud-based management, we can remotely support Meraki, which makes it easy for us. We like to sell and deploy Meraki MX because of the ease of management.

It can be hard to get a hold of the solution’s technical support team.

Meraki MX is a stable product that rarely fails. We have Meraki firewalls that have been in service for more than seven years.

We have a couple hundred Meraki firewalls active for customers. A firewall can support many people. If you have a big MX100 in a corporate office, it can handle a couple hundred endpoints. We add people or devices, and the solution just picks it up without any problems.

It can be hard to get a hold of the technical support, but once you get hold of somebody, they know what they're doing.

Neutral

Some of our customers wanted Meraki. Once we started deploying Meraki based on our customer requirements, we found it to be an easier product to work with. Depending on the customers, we also deploy other solutions like Ubiquiti, Juniper Networks, SonicWall, and FortiGate.

SonicWall and FortiGate might have a higher throughput on their VPNs than Meraki. However, Meraki seems to be slightly more stable and easier to configure.

Setting up Meraki MX is like setting up any firewall. The solution's initial setup is fairly straightforward once you understand the dashboard's GUI features and get it built and configured into the portal.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven out of ten.

One person can set up and configure multiple firewalls, and then we'll go out and deploy them.

The return on investment with Meraki MX has been good because we rarely have to replace a piece of equipment for a customer. As long as it's licensed, Meraki warrants it. Once we put it in place, the solution rarely fails. We're rarely out of pocket for any defective product in terms of a warranty. If the customer wants it and it's licensed, Meraki will replace it.

Every customer is a little bit different. We license both Meraki MX with basic enterprise licensing and advanced security licensing to different customers. We have a customer who uses all advanced security licensing because they like to do managed traffic shaping and offer guest Wi-Fi solutions inside their stores.

We like Meraki products, and we'll continue to use them. We're a national reseller of Cisco Meraki.

Overall, I rate Meraki MX eight and a half out of ten.

This is where most of my data is. It includes different geographical connectivity, SD-WAN, PSLAD, ISP load balancing, penetration testing, server spoofing, and active services.

This solution provides a better capability where I can create a virtual network. It allows direct connectivity and works with ISP. Since cybersecurity is my main concern, this type of miscommunication relating to vulnerability blocking is crucial.

Data is the only path, so optimization is essential. 

I have been using it recently. Six months ago, I set up 30 connections.

There is no significant issue with customer service.

Neutral

The setup process is straightforward and easy to use. I will include the documentation.

It is neither expensive nor cheap. It is moderate, middle level.

The solution is very well-rated.

I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use Meraki MX for the firewall, but typically, it's a great VPN software.

Meraki MX's VPN access for remote use is a valuable feature. The solution is good for load balancing.

The solution's pricing should be reduced. There are other remote tools out there for VPN access, and Meraki MX is gradually losing ground because it's expensive.

My new business owner went from having 14 devices to seven and then from seven to two. Now, I'm only paying for two licenses. I'll soon be moving away from Meraki entirely. The solution's price should be reduced so that new businesses can easily use it.

I have been using Meraki MX for ten years.

Meraki MX is a very stable solution.

Meraki MX is a scalable solution. Around 14 users are using the solution in our organization.

Since Meraki MX has a graphical user interface, its initial setup is pretty straightforward. However, you need either a consultant or a technical expert to install the solution.

Meraki MX can be typically deployed within one to two hours. We implemented the solution through an in-house team.

You need to know the business use case for which you want to use the solution. If you want to use the solution for load balancing, you need to specify the use cases for which you want to use it and all that will be considered.

We have seen a return on investment with Meraki MX.

Meraki MX is an expensive solution. Meraki MX is a cloud-based solution, and we pay an annual license for our physical device.

We deployed the physical server, but Meraki MX is cloud-based.

Overall, I rate Meraki MX an eight out of ten.

The product is used as a firewall. We can use it in remote sites like end-user client offices and data centers.

Ease of management is the best thing about the solution. Cloud management is pretty much the driver.

Most firewall vendors provide a pretty good amount of logging information, like errors, issues, and warnings. Meraki does some of it but does not provide detailed logging information. We can send it to syslog or SIM, but we can't get it from the portal or the device itself. It would be nice to get detailed logging information without third-party software.

I am using the solution currently.

The tool is quite stable. The stability is generally very good.

The scalability is generally pretty good as long as we size it properly. Once we hit a threshold on memory or throughput on a device, we'll have to upgrade it physically. It's a hit or miss. We have to make sure we size it right. If a client is going to stay the same size for quite a while, then it's pretty much all set.

Generally, I don't hear any complaints about the support team. So, I think it's probably decent.

The initial setup was pretty easy and pretty simple.

The time taken for deployment depends on the environment. In some cases, it takes just a couple of hours. It could take a lot longer if it’s a larger environment with multiple locations. Usually, it can be done on the same day. We've got hundreds of clients, so we have a team focusing on upgrades and maintenance. For an individual environment, especially a smaller one, the maintenance can easily be done by one person. We need a team to maintain the tool for a medium or enterprise-level company. If it's only a couple of firewalls or within ten or twenty, it's pretty easy to maintain it. It's all cloud-based, so it's really simple.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten. The larger MX products are on the expensive side. It is not in the top price range, but it is closer to high than low.

People considering using the product must ensure it's sized properly for the amount of traffic in the environment they’re putting it in. Generally, it's a pretty straightforward product. However, it must provide extended logging. I'd probably rate the solution a nine out of ten if it provided more extensive logging. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

As a telecommunications company, we use the tool for our customers. We use it for SD-WAN and standalone devices with Wi-Fi.

The features vary for each customer. The simplicity of configuration is the most valuable feature of the solution.

The product could incorporate tools like ThousandEyes into the system so we can see things directly. If we are going to a public cloud and do not have an end device in the cloud that we can monitor from the dashboard, the tools will allow us to see what a service or customer experience looks like going across that network.

I have been using the solution for about three years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. Stability is very good, but it's not absolutely perfect.

The scalability based on the number of devices is pretty good. However, scalability based on the bandwidth is quite limited. About 35 customers are using the solution.

Technical support's pretty good.

The initial setup is quite straightforward.

We buy a free license upfront. Our customers pay for the solution on a monthly basis. All licenses are expensive compared to what they used to be in the routing domain a few years ago.

If someone wants a couple of SD-WAN components, it's a simple solution. It's more complex for others who require better bandwidth and bigger devices. We can talk to our customers about their needs and make the tool fit the customer's needs. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The primary use case for Meraki MX is to establish a wide Internet drive over the Internet. We use it as a perimeter firewall and also as an SD-WAN device to establish secure tunnels and dynamically route applications over the best available route.

Meraki MX provides visibility from the network, especially if the customer has more than just the MX, including APs and switches. It offers a single management platform with visibility of the entire network.

What is valuable about Meraki MX is its unified threat management capabilities. Features are straightforward to use as you switch them on or off, which can be advantageous from a simplicity point of view.

Generally, the feedback is about the visibility of the network. Sometimes you want a little bit more control, and you don't have that control with Meraki MX.

We have been selling the Meraki MX for probably about seven or eight years now.

The stability of Meraki MX is very good. I would rate it as a nine out of ten, indicating it is very stable.

The scalability of Meraki MX is quite expansive. They range from smaller Z devices up to the big MX. It's generally scalable with little to no issues.

Technical support from Cisco is also very good. I would recommend a nine out of ten. The customer service and support have been satisfactory.

Positive

It always requires getting our system integrators involved. The initial setup is not overly complex, but it requires someone with experience to do a bit of configuration.

I would say the costs are fairly competitive. I would rate it as a seven or eight in terms of how competitive it is.

Competitors for Meraki MX include Fortinet and Aruba.

Yes, I can recommend Meraki MX to other users. It has the Cisco name behind it, which is well-known in the industry. The support is great, and it’s generally competitive from a customer perspective.

I use Meraki MX in my company basically for site-to-site VPN connection, and it serves as a firewall for our normal office environment.

The most valuable features of the solution are the cloud interface for cloud management and the SD-WAN, along with certain features like secure VPN, built-in VPN, SSL, IPSec VPN solutions, and higher availability. It can accommodate carrier support because of which, other than the fiber, I can have one more point to access through a SIM card.

I do not have the kind of feature I need for SSL decryption in Meraki MX. It would be great to see the SSL decryption feature in Meraki MX.

I have been using Meraki MX for three years. I use Meraki MX105. My company is a customer of the product.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I haven't tried the tool's scalability features, but as far as I understood from the tech sheet I saw related to the tool, I rate the solution's scalability a seven out of ten.

Around 300 people in the organization use the solution.

Very rarely do I contact the technical support team of the solution. I usually contact the technical support team of the product when some update happens in the product. I faced some issues while updating the product once, after which I opened a ticket with the support team, and with their guidance and help, I could resolve the issue. The firewall was configured as active-active with high availability, so when one firewall was down, the other one was working fine. I haven't faced too much trouble with the product.

My experience with the support team was fine, and since most of the things are already available on forums, you can manage everything related to the tool by yourself.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, my company was using Sophos XG Firewall. My company switched from Sophos XG Firewall to Meraki MX. All our company's network devices are from Cisco, and with Meraki MX, we can actually add switches, routers, access points, and everything to the firewall, which in turn offers more stability and secures the network compared to Sophos XG Firewall. Sophos XG Firewall offered an IDPS firewall capable of stopping any kind of intrusion, but I was feeling worried about the switches and access point security. Since our contract with Sophos had expired, we moved to Meraki.

The product's initial setup phase is very easy. It has a very good web interface that is easy to manage and operate.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The deployment was carried out in two sites, which took around two days to complete.

In my country, the product is cheap compared to the UK because of the differences in taxes.

If you are looking for a solution that is easy to manage and offers stability, and if you are not really very specific about SSL decryption, then you can go for Meraki MX.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

Our clients use the solution mostly at the bank's small sites and branch offices. The appliance has security features like firewalls, DDoS protection, and threat prevention. It comes with additional licenses.

WAN optimization is the best feature of the solution. We can customize the product. We can customize events too.

The product doesn't support route summarization and BGP dynamic routing protocol. The product has to provide more flexibility in hardware. It should also introduce route summarization features. It is not an application-aware product.

I have been working with the solution for seven to eight years.

The tool is stable. However, other Meraki products are not stable. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is not scalable. I rate the scalability a four out of ten. The hardware has certain limitations in memory. If we need a higher memory, we must change the box. If we need LTE as a backup element within the box and have already deployed one flavor, we cannot use it. We have to replace the box. The hardware is the limitation.

Cisco’s support is quite excellent.

Positive

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. The product is a cloud-based solution, and it has a cloud-based controller. The deployment took a few hours. A single site can be deployed in a maximum of four hours.

The number of people required for deployment depends on the customer’s number of sites.

The product’s pricing depends on the discount Cisco gives to different people. Compared to Juniper or Silver Peak, I rate the tool's pricing a six or seven out of ten.

We require at least three to four people to commission the solution because many integration points are required, like the RBAC policy integration. If we want to deploy MAC authentication, then that's an integration requirement. These things consume more time than the product itself.

We would recommend the solution to our clients, but we would also give them options. Meraki MX is not the only solution. It must be made application aware to compete with Juniper or Silver Peak. Overall, I rate the product a six out of ten.