SonicWall TZ Reviews

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 TZ300 for our branch offices.

The price of the solution is great. It's a very cost-effective solution.

There are a lot of security features - including Capture Client, URL filtering, content filtering, application filtering, et cetera, and they are all very useful in terms of protecting our company.

The initial setup is easy.

The stability could be a lot better. The SonicOS, which we were using, was not that stable. Sometimes it is not performing as expected as per the policies we have set. 

The log, the logging capabilities, are not so good. For example, the logging for traffic logs was not being stored properly. The logging must support some storage space. If there is a storage device or storage mechanism within it we would be able to get the log easier.

We've been using the solution over the last 12 months or so. It's been a while.

We haven't found the solution to be very stable. t doesn't operate as we expect it to sometimes. We'd like it to be better, performance-wise.

We currently have 20-25 users in our branch offices. We started with 15 users and therefore we scaled up a bit, however, not in a massive sense. At this point, we likely won't scale anymore.

We have been in touch with technical support and I would say that they are responding fine. We are happy so far with their attention. Occasionally we deal with stability issues and we find that they respond quickly.

The initial setup was not overly complex or difficult. It's very straightforward. The whole setup is pretty plug-and-play.

The pricing is very reasonable. It's quite cost-effective. We purchase a license that renews yearly.

We did previously also look at Sophos.

We are partners and resellers. I'm a consultant.

I'd advise new users that if they are planning to deploy it for their SMB or have up to 100 users, then they should go with the SonicWall firewall.

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

We have multiple branches, and we have configured SonicWall VPNs for branch-to-branch connectivity through IPSec. I am also restricting websites to protect us from hackers, torrents, games, and other such things. I am using SonicWall TZ 400 series.

Most of the features are useful. It is easy to configure and easy to troubleshoot.

I can see the utilization of different networks, and there are also App control features. 

FortiGate has a client DNS in the firewall, but SonicWall doesn't have that. To create or configure a site-to-site VPN tunnel, we have to give a DNS name. Currently, we have to get the DNS name from a third party and then include it in SonicWall, whereas FortiGate has its own client DNS, so it provides a DNS name, and it does not require a third party.

There should be a graphical option to view the network utilization and bandwidth usage.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is very stable.

It is scalable. We have 100 users of this solution. We might increase its usage in the future in about eight months.

Their technical support is good. They are very helpful. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

We were using ESET Antivirus for endpoint security. For firewalls, we were using FortiGate and MikroTik firewalls. FortiGate is fine, and it is helpful and easy, but MikroTik is not. It can't stop attacks from hackers.

In addition to SonicWall TZ, we are now using Cloud App Security from SonicWall for endpoint security, and we have Email Security from SonicWall for emails. In addition, we are using Capture Client from SonicWall for endpoint protection. All these solutions are very helpful, easy to configure, and easy to troubleshoot.

It was straightforward. It took five to ten minutes.

I would recommend this solution. We plan to keep using this solution. We have recently renewed our license, and we don't have any plans to use any other solution.

I would rate SonicWall TZ an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to secure our network environment. We have implemented it in other locations in our organization.

It's a good solution with good features.

It's a good product, but it's not a next-generation firewall. We are looking for a next-generation firewall and considering Cisco.

We require centralized monitoring of the network features, which they have but they are not to the level that we require.

The reporting is not good. Also, the historical configuration of the data or backup is not available.

To compete in the market, there have to be a lot of improvements.

We do not plan to continue using SonicWall TZ. We are looking for a replacement because we need centralized monitoring across the organization. It has been very difficult for us to manage the firewall as it is not managed centrally. This is the main drawback in our current scenario.

In the next release, I would like to see better scalability, easier installation, improved reporting, storage configuration, backup, and centralized management with reporting.

I have been using this solution for four years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable product.

It is not very scalable, which is something that could be better.

We have multiple locations and have implemented it in several.

At this time, we have 1,000 users on the firewall.

Technical support is good. There is no need for improvement.

We did not use another firewall previously.

The installation is not straightforward. But, through the GUI, there are features that you can enable to configure.

Forcepoint and Cisco are straightforward but there are many things to do with SonicWall.

For a first-time installation, it can take half a day to deploy.

We completed the implementation ourselves.

The license that we purchased is good for three years.

We have evaluated ForcePoint but we haven't used it.

We will be testing Cisco and Barracuda in our environment.

For small organizations, its' good, and I would recommend it, but not for medium or large enterprise companies.

I would rate SonicWall TZ a five out of ten.