SonicWall TZ Reviews

Our use case is that our email and CRM are in the cloud but the rest of the solution is here on our old server on premise. That includes file sharing and internal programs, too. We have some kind of replication of the cloud on premise to use in case of problems.

The feature with SonicWall that I have found most valuable is that all the models have the same interface. We don't need to learn different interfaces in the smaller or bigger models. The other thing is the actualization and upgrade politic are really strong, really good, very high quality. Lastly, the performance and the price are excellent.

I am really happy with the product. The new interface is really modern and really clear. The 7th generation is a really big improvement.

It has a very good design.

In terms of what could be improved. That is a very good question. Maybe the price could be lower. That is the only thing. Otherwise, it is really a very good product with really good performance. The only thing is maybe to lower the price a little bit - but it's not a complaint. I don't have complaints with SonicWall.

SonicWall is really a very complete product.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for five or six years.

SoinciWall TZ is really very stable.

Their scalability is wonderful. SonicWall has a migration table and it's easy to migrate the configuration of a small model to medium or all types. It's really easy. No problem. I have done this a few times and each time was perfect.

We have almost 100 users.

One person is enough for doing maintenance on SonicWall.

We do have plans to increase usage to more or less 10 or 20% more users next year.

The support is excellent

Previous to being introduced to SonicWall, I used Softforce.

The initial deployment is easy. Even in the case when a client has a particularly exotic configuration - the support is quick, fast, and very professional.

How long the deployment takes depends. Normally, the delays are the fault of the misinformation we receive from a client. Or misunderstanding the information the client provided us before we did the setup of the firewall. Normally it's not a problem with SonicWall.

We pay yearly or bi-yearly. Normally we offer the license for two or three years. But it's common to buy the license year by year.

My only recommendation is that you need to be a certificate holder to set it up and configure it. It's really important because it looks easy, but it is complex. You need to have the knowledge and experience. But this is normal for technical products. It is not a product for the regular user. It's for technical people. You need to have skills.

As a customer and a reseller, we feel they are doing a really good job.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give SonictWall TZ obviously a 10.

Our primary use cases are a site-to-site VPN connection, content filtering and in addition SSL VPN connectivity for remote desktops.

It provides our organization with very low throughput.

The site-to-site VPN connections, content filtering, and in our current remote working situation, SSL VPN remote desktop connectivity are the most valuable features. 

The areas we would like to see improvement include more features available similar to the equivalent FortiGate appliance, e.g. SSL encryption and inspection. Two-factor authentication capability would be another additional feature that could be included in the next release. 

I have been using SonicWall for 2 years. We have utilized SonicWall appliances for the last 7 years.

The overall stability has been good, there were no issues or concerns from the viewpoint.

We size our appliance based on the number of users, in this solution the TZ appliance was suitable for 30-40 users.

We experienced a very good level of support from the vendor and they have assisted us in real time via remote session when needed.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It took approximately 3-4 hours.

In comparison to competitors the license price is higher and as a suggestion, for 10-15 users potentially provide a free basic license.

We did evaluate the Fortinet FortiGate equivalent option.

It is cloud-based. I am managing it from my HQ to centralize all the branches connected with it, point-to point. I'm using the SonicWall for the gateway. Certainly I'm using it for DLP and antivirus logging, and we are using SonicWall firewall for the mail filtering. Also, we can use SonicWall firewall just like on SD-WAN. We can manage all our branches through that central point from their patches.

We have a centralized firewall here and it will take some bandwidth just like a broadband connection, but with low bandwidth or mobility connection. Through that, we can connect from the HQ to all our branches on those devices, through that particular antennae. All the data transmitted from the corporate office to branch offices works smoothly on the low bandwidth.

Because it is a software-developed feature in SonicWall, we just maintain the main firewall. With the main firewall routing there, we can do connectivity point-to-point. On the low bandwidth we can connect to all the branches from my corporate office.

In terms of what needs to be improved, I would say better load balancing and data filtering. This way we have low utilization of the net from the corporate office to all the branches. This is the connectivity there. The traffic from the HQ to all the branches goes on the low latency so that connectivity is continuous and not dropped.

In the next release it should have both the failure and load balancing combined on there. Whenever there is a failure and whenever they are load balancing, it should auto-generate the traffic for any connectivity on there, so it will run smoothly. It should also generate the alert.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for the last 10 years. We're using the SD-WAN solution from SonicWall.

This solution is quite stable.

Scalability is more than fine.

We have around 500 users with connectivity on it.

We do have plans to increase usage.

Technical support is good, there is no issue.

I am comfortable with them all: SonicWall, Check Point, Palo Alto, Sophos. Right now, I'm using the Sophos 225 and 125 in my offices and have a XG 862 in all the branches connected from there. I work on that firewall installation and also the NetScaler on the Citrix. That's simply fundamental. There are some differences with the connectivity and ruling. The rule tab is the same.

I work on their Azure AD platform and also Exchange. On the Exchange, I am working on the O365.

I am also using Trend Micro, Symantec, and McAfee.

This technology comes with these different platforms and you go on the previous one from a couple years ago. The SD-WAN-only technology is not that common. It costs more from US, Canada and from that area of connectivity. It will drop the packet from there.

It has an easy setup. You can centralize all the connectivity. This OS is running with each and everything, and you can monitor it all from the centralized point.

I also give the support for Exchange, but this will take low bandwidth and low latency from any mobile connectivity, any internet, any low-bandwidth connectivity and work fine. But other products like McAfee and Symantec can support the Exchange.

It can take time for the synchronization of updating the devices. This depends on how many devices we have connecting from the portal and which devices they are working on. Sometimes, you have the scanning on there. So it will take that functionality and we can define for root causes on the other things. We can define according to policy. So this depends on the policy design. It also depends on that criteria.

On a scale of one to 10, I would give SonicWall TZ a nine.

We use SonicWall TZ for site-to-site VPN and as an NSa firewall. We have a mixture of SonicWall TZ devices that we use which are the TZ300, TZ350, and TZ400.

We have experienced some issues with SonicWall TZ and they are lacking some advanced features other vendors have.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for approximately nine years.

We have approximately 30 people using the solution in our organization.

The support for SonicWall TZ is good.

The installation is straightforward and took approximately 30 minutes.

We have one technician that does the maintenance for this solution.

I have evaluated Fortinet and we may have future plans to switch solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SonicWall TZ a seven out of ten.

We are using a server for all our details, and we are accessing data from multiple countries. So, we needed a firewall.

We are using the SonicWall TZ400 model.

It has been helpful in many ways. We can see the bandwidth usage for users and how they have used it. From time to time, we get complaints that the server is a bit slow, and we then go to the reporting part to check the bandwidth usage for each user. It has also blocked a couple of viruses.

It is very user-friendly, and there is no problem in using its interface.

Its reporting can be improved. Currently, we cannot directly get the user names. It only shows the IP, which makes it a bit confusing because we need to use the IP to find the user. If we could directly get the name of the user, it would be better.

Its licensing should be improved. We would like to get the reporting part along with the license, without having to purchase it separately. It would be good if they combine both of these.

Its scalability can also be improved.

We have been using this solution for about two years.

It is a stable solution. There is no doubt about it.

Currently, we have 17 users in our country with access to the firewall. We have given them a VPN connection to the firewall to access some of their data.

It is more suitable for small businesses. It would be useful if they can improve its scalability so that even big companies can use it.

Whenever I needed any kind of support, the local partner gave me the best possible support. Their support was extremely good.

It is a bit expensive. We have to purchase the license and the reporting part separately, which makes it a bit pricey. This is the main reason why we have thought of moving to another firewall. It would be good if they combine both of these.

We were a small business at the beginning, and we did not think of allowing all of our countries to access the server, but now, we need to give everyone access to the server. We are thinking of moving to a firewall that would be better than this.

I would rate SonicWall TZ a 10 out of 10. It is a good product.

We work based on a client's requirements. We don't maintain any segmentation information. We sell all types of solutions from SonicWall, such as their next-generation firewall, cloud solutions, and switching and routing solutions. 

Deployment is based on a client's requirements. If a client gives us the requirement for the cloud, then we do the cloud deployment. 

Its user interface and simplicity are the most favorite parts for our clients. They find it stable and easy to use. Its performance is also good. 

Our clients feel comfortable using SonicWall. It has all the facilities to block the threats.

The marketing of SonicWall has to be increased. Currently, when it comes to firewalls, most people go for Cisco and Palo Alto. SonicWall should improve its marketing and branding policies to increase sales. Other than that, it is good. 

We have been selling this solution for about two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. The entry-level companies are taking TZ 300, TZ 400, and TZ 600 from us, and they have 100 to 150 users. The bigger companies ask for the next-generation firewall such as NSA 2650 and NSA 3650.

We have about 50 customers who are using SonicWall. They include government organizations and corporates. We have lots of clients who have already taken SonicWall. They have the license, support, and subscription for two years. 

They are good enough.

We are selling solutions for most of the brands such as Cisco, Sophos, SonicWall, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. For email security, we are selling Barracuda. For those clients who have the financial capability, we recommend Palo Alto. 

The deployment duration depends on the transportation. If the installation site is far from our office, it takes time to transport it. In terms of installation, if a client's site is ready to deploy the firewall, then we don't need much time. We can do it instantly.

Sometimes, the licensing part can take some time. If someone wants a renewal, it can take some time to complete the procedure and receive the license via email, but it is bearable and not the problem.

For the setup, we have a good team, and there is no problem. We have five people in our technical team. We also get help from SonicWall's England team.

It has a yearly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others. In every sector, SonicWall is doing good. Our clients do not have any complaints. They feel comfortable using it. It has all the facilities to block the threats, and it is quite good. 

SonicWall is able to provide a solution for the requirements of our clients. Only because of the lack of marketing and branding, SonicWall is not able to reach customer premises, and that's the reason why its sale is not much.

I would rate SonicWall TZ a seven out of 10.

We primarily use SonicWall TZ as an internet gateway for a lot of our small to medium-sized clients' sites.

The most valuable features are unified threat management which provides security intelligence and the VPN for both site-to-site and remote access.

We are not receiving the rated throughput that the solution claims. We have noticed our client's internet bandwidth has increased but we are not receiving the throughput that the device is sized for. For example, if I have a device that is rated to handle 400 megabits of throughput, we are not receiving that speed. We are receiving significantly less than that in some cases, this needs to be improved. I do not know if this is still the case with the latest generation of SonicWall's, but we have sixth-generation SonicWall's in use and we are not receiving the rated bandwidth.

We have built a host secondary DNS directly on the firewall. For example, If you have a small business environment where you only have one server or you have a remote office location where you do not have any servers, you could use a VPN back to the main office and rely on the internal DNS server. However, you will have no redundancy for DNS. There are two choices, we can either use a public DNS service, which is a mistake because it will not know where the information is on the local network. The active directory is not going to work properly if the resources you want cannot be found. You end up picking between two poor options. You either have no redundancy for DNS or you have redundant DNS where one of them is not the best quality. The whole industry is lacking an alternative. I would like to be able to host a secondary DNS on a firewall appliance, many people need this feature.

In an upcoming release, SonicWall could improve by adding cloud management for all devices for free or at a nominal cost. Currently, they have a cloud management platform but is not free. We have the MySonicWall portal for purchasing from them for software updates and renewals.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for approximately 14 years.

SonicWall TZ is very stable. We rarely have to reboot the platform.

We have not needed to scale the solution very much, our clients are typically small to medium business environments where we do not need the scalability. However, The scalability could improve because there is not a centralized device manager.

The technical support is good. However, there is a language barrier because their support is based out of India and you cannot always understand the agent that you are speaking with. Sometimes support is outstanding, and other times you do not have the level of technical expertise that you need.

The solution is easy to do the setup and is intuitive.

To implement and do the maintenance of SonicWall TZ we do not need a dedicated team.

You need to purchase multiple licenses to manage multiple devices which is cost-prohibitive for the value you would receive.

I rate SonicWall TZ an eight out of ten.

The web security and IPsec VPN are both valuable aspects of the solution.

The NAT policies and port forwarding are great. 

We were initially actually using very basic features for my organization's requirements. It is a very simple model. There isn't much complexity to it.

It's been very easy to implement and deploy.

The solution is stable. 

Technical support is perfect.

We've found the pricing to be pretty good overall.

It would be nice if it was more user-friendly. The user interface is a bit difficult to navigate.

The technology in this particular version is very old. 

They have to improve their assistant client application.

In this particular SonicWall has a challenge with the SSL client. It provided NetExtender, a client application that is very challenging and is difficult to manage.

I've been working with the solution for about six years or so. 

I would say that it is 100% stable. Sometimes there's an issue, and we have to log a ticket, however, they will have it resolved. Rarely are there bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Sometimes support is delayed, and sometimes we get items resolved within hours. Overall, it is okay. Overall it is okay. They are very helpful and responsive most of the time and we are quite satisfied with their level of attention.

We previously used a solution called AnexGATE. However, we had issues with port following and needed to switch.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly complex. A company shouldn't have too much trouble implementing it. This is especially true if you have a bit of a technical person implementing it.

For the most part, the solution is very economical.

Although we have been using it for the last six or seven years, it is now expired and we want to upgrade it with either Fortinet or Sophos, and so, we are looking into those.

We are a customer and an end-user.

We are using the TZ300 model at this time. We haven't used the latest version of the solution just yet.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall for security purposes. We use it to protect ourselves and our clients.

The solution, as a firewall is very useful for any company trying to protect their premise through the internet.

The price of the solution is very reasonable.

The performance has been very good. Overall, the solution is quite stable.

We have found the solution to be scalable.

In general, it's quite a solid product.

The initial setup is quite simple. 

It's worked well for us over the years. We don't have any special demands in terms of new features. It has everything we need. 

Although the pricing is good, it could always be lower. If we get to pay less, we're happier.

We've been working with the solution for about 22 years. It's been over two decades. We've used it for a long time.

The stability of the solution is good. The performance is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been very good over the years.

The scalability of the product is quite good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so easily.

We have about 200 customers using this solution right now.

We do have plans to increase usage. We're moving more and more towards managing it.

For the SMV market, it's very nice support. We have no complaints. We're happy with the service they provide, especially at the price they offer.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly complicated or difficult. A company shouldn't have any problems installing it.

To do an installation might take 15 minutes, then for adding any kind of complexity into the setup, there could be an added four hours or so. It depends on your setup requirements and the environment. 

We have two people that handle the maintenance, and we also have one consultant. 

We handled it ourselves. We're integrators ourselves. It's very easy to do. 

The product offers very competitive pricing, It's quite good. We find it very reasonable. 

Users need to pay a licensing fee on a monthly basis.

We use various versions of the solution at any given time.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite happy with its capabilities.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

We primarily use the solution for its firewall capabilities.

The best thing about the product is the very good threat prevention output.

The dashboard needs to be improved.

They can work on the GUI part of the solution. Currently, it is a little bit complicated as compared to other competitors.

Each uplink is quite a big and complicated sort of tool. Other products, like Checkpoint, are so-so, however, they are better. Fortinet is a good example of one that is very good and easy to use.

I've been working with the solution for four to five years.

The stability is excellent. We find it to be reliable. We haven't had any issues at all.

We consider growing the solution based on the company's needs. We work with different sizes of organizations. We try to project out what a company will need, not tomorrow, but three years down the line, and build for that on day one.

We do this due to the fact that it's not exactly scalable. We build it bigger so organizations can grow into the solution quite a bit. Users are restricted by the model of the firewall, so if you choose something that's too small, it won't be able to meet your needs and you'll have to start over and trade up to a bigger model.

If a TZ series can handle 500 users, and a company currently has 200 users, they'll be able to scale up, technically speaking, to about 300 more users before they hit their threshold.

Basically, the scalability is not infinite. It's quite limited to the capacity of the model itself.

We've never dealt with technical support. We've managed to handle any issues ourselves, in-house. I can't speak to the kind of service they provide.

I also have experience with Sophos XG.

I find that there aren't too many differences between firewalls, as everyone has the same platform and goals.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very straightforward. We found it to be quite easy.

It may take a while to deploy the solution, at least here in Haiti. It will take longer than a few hours. Depending on the client, it can take anywhere from a day or two to up to ten or 15 days.

It's all dependent on the customer side. What will define the length of time will be is the mobile policy they want to implement on the firewall. That depends on the customer.

You only need one person to deploy and maintain the solution.

We're resellers. We handle the implementation for our clients.

We use this solution ourselves, however, we also deploy it for our clients. We're resellers.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I don't know if I have specific advice, as each customer is different and has different needs in terms of security. It depends on their policies and how they want to implement them. There are almost endless amounts of policies that can be added to the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.