SonicWall TZ Reviews

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 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.

Once we moved the units up to the Gen 6 platform, they could support SSL-DPI. We are huge fans of the DPI. That piece is incredibly easy to implement. I'd say probably the most powerful thing about the solution is that coupled with the captured functionality. 

We've turned the SSL inspection on, and it is a nightmare. It doesn't mean it doesn't work, but it will turn your world upside down for weeks until you tune it and get it right. That's an across the board problem. It's not just TZ. That's TZ's, NSA's, etc. Wherever you're using their implementation of SSL, where you've got to implement a certificate on every machine. Once you even get past that it's still going to be particular and finicky. Banking sites are driven crazy by it every time we turn it on.

It is trying to lock down outbound traffic so tightly that you get to sites that are already very security conscious. It's just a battle to get the traffic through. Intentional traffic, the traffic you want to get through, seems to be a problem. It will stop almost everything. Too much in fact. I understand the concept. It's just a little threatening. We just had a client sign off on a 6650. Then we send them a scope of work for implementing it. We specifically put a note in there in enormous bold type: "Note does not include SSL-DPI implementation". That is additional. The client responded that  "That's the one piece I wanted you guys to do. I'm scared of it."

He said, "We're scared of it," and I told him, "We're scared of it too." I said, "I don't know how long it's going to take. And it's going to turn your universe upside down for a week to 10 days to maybe two weeks." He said that he heard that this would be the case. 

My fear is that the client thinks that we'll say it will take four hours and then, when it turns into 40, try to make us give them the submission for free. 

Even tiny environments, for example, 10 user environments, once you turn it on, you will spend days tuning it. The last one we did took us 22 hours to get it perfect. We learned our lesson. We slotted in four to eight hours to do it and it took us 16 to 20.

From a support perspective, if we're talking tech support I think Silver Partners, Gold Partners, Platinum, whatever level, should have a different number to call. End users can call tech support over at SonicWall if they've paid for support as part of their AGSS or whatever services they bought. The end-user can call, or we can call, however, I don't want to be calling the same line that an end user's calling. I don't want the same response time. I need a different level of expertise.

We've been a SonicWall dealer for 21 years approximately. We've been handling the solution since 1999. I personally didn't start using the solution until 2004.

Once you get past all the configuration issues, If you are on a rock-solid GA (Generally Available firmware), I don't know if I want to say it's bulletproof, however, the stability is really, really good. I don't sit and worry, thinking, "Oh, God. We know another one's going to fail today." We never think that way about that type of stuff. It's the odd time where we might get hardware failures or random reboots. We've had a couple of SMA units go sideways. Even SonicWall couldn't solve the problem. However, that said, it's rare.

There's a couple of different ways to answer the question of scalability. They've built the TZ line wide enough so that we've got enough of a selection to be able to fit most bandwidth and user count situations. It's never going to fit everybody and it's not meant to. It shouldn't. It is a little challenging to try to get one of the boxes to do full wire speed. I'm not so sure inside that box, at the price point, you're going to solve that problem.

That's why we sold the 6650. One client has got a one gig fiber line and they're in a school. On an NSA 3600, he can't get over 400 on it. I told him he never would. Some days I'd be surprised to get 400, depending on the user count. The TZ lineup is pretty good, however, I'm not so sure I'd use the word scalable. 

If what we mean by scalable is, "oh, well, I buy a 300 and I buy it for 10 users, but I can scale up to 30 users with that box," the answer to that is no you can't. If you ask "could I scale up to 25 users and move to 200 or 300 or 400 meg?" You can't. We've got somebody in that situation right now and we're quoting a box replacement because it just can't scale that way.

You can't necessarily scale on the appliance. You've got to get the right size. That's the easiest way to scale. If it's the right-sized appliance for the environment with some headroom then I think most situations users are going to be fine. There's going to be some issues where somebody cheaps out. For example, we worked with a law firm. They bought a TZ 300 because they didn't want to spend the money for the 500. Now they're going to have to spend the money for the 500 anyway because they need to scale up. 

I don't think they really separate support from line to line. Maybe if you get all the way up into supermassive issues they do. Between NSA and TZ, it's the same level of service that you get on the other end of the phone. To be quite honest, level one support is not sparkling. Level two is usually really good. Level three is usually a combination. You get to level three, and you're almost talking to development or a combination of a crew that's dealing with development and senior technical expertise. Those guys rarely fail us.

That's a typical support story. The level one guys will read the scripts and don't necessarily fix anything. We've already run through level one through three on our end with my staff. If they can't fix it, talking to a level one script reader is definitely not going to get it fixed. You should be able to bypass those guys if you're a reseller and a long-standing Silver Partner, like we are.

We've also used Cisco previously. A while back, we used to have Cisco as our primary choice, with SonicWall being our second. That changed when I came to the company in 2004, where SonicWall became our solution of choice. We've got 400 or 500 firewalls out there and we don't plan on changing over to anything else.

We're a Silver Partner.

I'm not an engineer. I was a field engineer for nine years a long, long time ago. However, I'm not typically the one that gets my fingers into stuff, and it would be my engineering and senior engineering staff that do that. That said, I can say that I don't think any of our guys have touched the virtual platform yet.

We use TZ and traditional NSA tech every day. That's our bread and butter.

The current version we're using right now is the 600 series, although we do still have some 350 series. 90% of what we use are Gen 6. They're either TZ 300, 400, 500, 600 or NSA 2600, 3600, 4600. 

We've got a smattering of 2650s that we've rolled out, which have been really, really good. Those are powerful units.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It doesn't warrant more than that. There's plenty of products I'd give a five to out there, however, for the quality of the product offering, I think an eight is a fair mark.

We use SonicWall TZ for standard firewall use cases, like blocking intrusion attacks.

The solution's VPN is very good for stability and detecting threats. The solution's web content filter seems to be very good.

The solution's pricing could be made cheaper.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for five years.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for stability.

Approximately 250 to 300 users are using SonicWall TZ in our organization.

I would recommend SonicWall TZ to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is used for firewall protection with our customers.

Stability is the most valuable feature of the solution.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable.

The solution can be used for small, and medium companies as long as the organization has the budget for it. I recommend Cisco Meraki for enterprise companies because it works on the cloud and is more scalable.

The solution is expensive.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I recommend the solution.

SonicWall TZ is used for network security.

SonicWall TZ can improve the UI application and when you create any net policies or any new policy, it will not sync or work properly.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for approximately three months.

SonicWall TZ is stable. However, sometimes we have some issues.

The scalability of SonicWall TZ is good and easy to add users. 

I have contacted the technical support from SonicWall TZ and their support is good.

I have previously used UiPath and FortiGate firewalls and FortiGate is my favorite because it is consistent and has a good configuration. UiPath has a good interface and is user-friendly.

The price of SonicWall TZ is good for medium-sized companies.

My advice to others is this is a good solution but sometimes it is not working properly. I would recommend this solution for a home setup and I would recommend FortiGate firewalls for companies.

I rate SonicWall TZ a six out of ten.

It is for our company. We are not customers, we are direct clients. I am the end user.

The general feature is the antivirus policy, followed by the ransomware protection, and these are the features I was looking at. The VPN feature is not something that I'm a great fan of, but I mean, it is not something that I would even complain about. Whatever is required for my organization, the TZ 400 has performed admirably.

The user interface is a little challenging. It is not something I am familiar with. Things could go much more smoothly if they could be improved.

The interface and technical support are probably the two most important things that I would like SonicWall to improve. If the product that they have is to be phased out, there must be an upgrade in technology as well.

I have been working with SonicWall TZ for seven years.

The version we are working with is SonicWall TZ400.

SonicWall TZ is a stable product.

SonicWall TZ is scalable.

It was difficult to contact technical support online.

Before SonicWall TZ, I have not worked with another similar product.

I recently purchased a FortiGate from Fortinet. I am about to receive the delivery, which will most likely be in a fortnight, so I do not have much experience. We are planning to use Fortinet FortiGate, our plan is to switch from SonicWall to Fortinet.

The initial setup is smooth. It is not complex.

It can take an hour to two hours to deploy.

The vendor was able to assist us.

The prices are expensive. I wouldn't say the prices are reasonable.

Personally, I find it challenging. Previously, they had an Adobe Flash interface. When Adobe Flash was phased out and a new version was released, it was difficult for us to upgrade, and we received little help from the SonicWall team.

I had also purchased the SonicWall Analyzer. The Analyzer was also based on Adobe Flash, which they did not support. One must consider future expandability and the technology that is being deployed, as well as whether or not it is supported by the company if it is phased out.

I would rate SonicWall TZ a six out of ten.