Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform Reviews

For BFSI and manufacturing, I usually recommend Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform.

The most valuable feature I find in Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform is multi-tenancy.

This is part of the feature list when discussing its Zero Trust Network Access.

It has benefited my customer's network performance. The underlay network has become very independent in the sense that we no longer need to position MPLS services. On the internet itself, we are able to give the best features as far as SD-WAN is concerned.

Even in MPLS, it was end-to-end encryption itself, but SD-WAN has further enhanced the aspect of security on the open internet link, which has helped my customers in protecting sensitive data.

The flexibility and application optimization is one feature which my customers have benefited from the most.

Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform could possibly be improved if they can integrate it with their own SD-WAN. SASE need not be a separate module as such. It can possibly be added as a value-add to the traditional legacy SD-WAN.

Integration with SD-WAN with SASE would be a good option as an additional feature I would like to see in the future. Rest, I don't think there are many changes which are required in the current state which Versa is in right now. Nothing comes to my mind immediately, at least.

I've been selling SD-WAN for about eight to nine years now while working with Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform.

The product has been pretty stable.

It is scalable.

At this point in time, I would rate Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform's technical support around eight out of ten.

Positive

I usually help my customers to implement the initial setup.

There are complications in terms of getting it implemented, but Versa professional services have been of great support to us.

Pricing for Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform is competitive. That should not be an issue.

I have utilized Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform's SD-WAN feature, and I think it's highly effective.

The real-time analytics and machine learning capabilities have not been fully utilized yet; that's something which our customers are exploring as of now.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 10.

I'm in sales, so I'm a seller for Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform. I usually recommend Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform for manufacturing and small and medium enterprise organizations.

I find Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform's features most valuable from the security perspective, wherein customers don't need to have multiple security devices, so one device can take care of SD-WAN capabilities as well as security features.

Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform's SD-WAN feature has benefited me significantly; the SD-WAN capability along with the security that has been offered is a lethal combination in my view.

So far, none of my customers have delved into much detail about Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform's threat intelligence capabilities because it's more of a focus on manufacturing and small and medium enterprise organizations, and the basic security and threat landscape is what they have been more keen on.

I assess Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform's real-time analytics and machine learning for improving threat detection as pretty common nowadays, so that is not a differentiator anymore.

I cannot think of areas where Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform could be improved as of now.

I cannot analyze additional features I would like to see in the next release of Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform at this point, because whatever functionality is offered at this moment is something that I have not been able to sell completely to the end customers yet.

They could promote Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform more because when we talk of SASE, it's Prisma that comes to the customer's mind, and if they can position it in a more aggressive manner, it will certainly help them.

The advantage that Palo Alto SASE has is because Palo Alto is a born-in-security organization, which gives it an edge; Versa is still conceived as more of a networking-related organization, so their footprint on security is still to be proven at par with Palo Alto in that sense.

I agree that Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform is not mature enough yet.

I've been working with Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform for one year now, and it's been one to two years overall.

I rate their technical support a ten.

Positive

I have not reached the stage wherein the ease of implementation of Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform could actually be judged upon, so I would not be able to answer this question.

As a reseller, I see their pricing as competitive.

We have other providers as well, but it's based on how the customer is getting aligned and what functionalities the customers are asking for; based on that, we position Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform.

I still feel that the functionality and features of Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform are much better than those of Palo Alto SASE, which is why I would rate them higher compared to Palo Alto.

Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform is the best option on the market at the moment.

I think the documentation and information over the internet about Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform are available in abundance, and I don't see much of an issue with that.

I have given this review an overall rating of 7.5.

The primary use case for Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform is application prioritizing and reducing dependency on MPLS to allow broadband connectivity. I am using advanced routing features in Versa.

The most valuable features of Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) are application prioritization, advanced routing features, and network gateway firewall capabilities. The platform provides centralized visibility and management, allowing for detailed policy enforcement across branches.

The cost of Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) is higher than other solutions available in the market. Additionally, there should be more technical materials and certifications available to improve awareness and skills in the industry.

I have been working with Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge Platform for one year. It is a new deployment for us.

The product is very stable with no complaints.

The scalability from a performance point of view is good, but from a commercial perspective, it is low. I would rate it as six out of ten.

I work with a partner, not directly with the OEM, which makes getting technical support on call very challenging. The quality of the support is average and there is often a delay.

Neutral

Earlier, we had a traditional network setup with Cisco routers and an MPLS network. Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge offered more advanced features.

The initial setup was very difficult and complex due to a lack of technical skills. Some technical skills and features need to be overseen by dedicated services.

A dedicated team with expertise is needed, as I was working through a partner which made things challenging.

I have not yet seen a return on investment because the system is OEM-specific and can't be easily repurposed or isolated.

The solution is very expensive, costing above one crore Indian rupees for our setup, which spans around twenty five branches.

My recommendation for those considering Versa is to improve the skill set within the industry and ensure more awareness about the technology. There needs to be exploration of other technologies available in Versa to benefit clients and make networks smoother. I rate the solution eight out of ten.

The primary feature that we find most favorable is its exceptional scalability. It proves to be highly scalable and versatile, serving a multitude of purposes. Whether it involves scaling applications, expanding the user base, or implementing various options for specific application scenarios, Versa Unified allows us to achieve these objectives seamlessly. In contrast, attempting the same operations with alternative solutions often presents challenges, making Versa a preferred choice in such scenarios.

The necessary enhancement pertains to the controller segment, specifically addressing the issue of frequent flapping when a link is left. In the case of Versa Unified, if a link experiences frequent flapping within an entire branch, it triggers instability. Hence, it is imperative that the overall routing system is not contingent solely upon the active dial branches.     

Certainly, there are areas that require enhancement, and the current focus is on improvements. Presently, I believe that the emphasis should be on enhancing user interface (UI) features, particularly over end devices. The issue arises when attempting to log in to Versa from other devices, as the UI is not device-specific. Consequently, guiding someone to log in to Versa antivirus becomes challenging. Despite the absence of issues on the website, the lack of a login scope impedes graphical representation of user data or databases. Since work databases support only a limited range of features, I recommend augmenting features for end devices to address these limitations.

I have experience with Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform.

Technical support is very good.

Positive

I would rate it 7 out of 10.

We are partnered with Versa via Colt Technology Services. We have two SD-WAN partners, Versa and VMware. My clients use Versa for remote work because it is an on-prem solution that is good at cloud security with its cloud web gateway.

Versa is a good centralized solution where you're setting up your infrastructure in a data center-type thing. Everything is built into a single box with Versa, so it's better if you want to reduce your footprint, have everything in the same location, and set software applications in a white box situation.

We've had the odd occasional stability issue with software upgrades, etcetera. They don't support certain other third-party applications, which can be a bit limiting at times, whereas VMware seems to have a bit better integration in terms of that.

We've been working with Versa Unified SASE for at least three years.

Versa is stable, but it requires a lot of new skills, which a lot of companies struggle to keep in-house these days. People don't necessarily have the built-in capabilities within the IT teams to deploy SD-WAN.

On the Internet side of things, the solution is quite easy to scale. You have limitations regarding each box's bandwidth, but it's quite flexible. You can do anything between ten megs and two gigs of total throughput. I suppose that is scalable, but you need a different box for each of them.

We have quite a range of customers from small, medium, and enterprise clients working with Versa. It is very scalable in that direction. We can do a single branch office with ten staff or massive organizations with thousands of people.

Customer support could be faster and escalate to more advanced levels of support.

Neutral

With us, deployment takes 35 working days. The number of engineers and architects required depends on how many sites you have. You need one engineer per site, as well as one solution architect. Sometimes having two is useful because they can bounce ideas off of each other.

We do the installations ourselves, and that's gone well without any issues.

Both Versa and VMware are cheap in terms of the router. I find Versa a little more expensive than VMware in terms of remote access and secure web gateway elements.

VMware is light in terms of the built-in security in the SD-WAN box. That's the main issue with them. If you don't already have a firewall, it can be limited on that front. I don't personally use the remote access features with VMware and Versa, and I couldn't tell you exactly how it goes. They seem to both be fairly on par with each other. If you're looking at remote access, both solutions are just VPNs back into the router. But with the secure web gateway solution, VMware has more PoPs worldwide, and that's quite useful. And if you've got international companies who perhaps have staff in each location, whereas with Versa, you need a larger presence than VMware in each location to justify having an SD-WAN router. With Versa, we have clients who, for example, don't have routers in Asia and America, but they use the remote access feature to VPN back into the data centers in the UK, and that seems to work. Whereas you could deploy a box, quite a light box with VMware quite easily at branch locations.

You could pick Versa if you're looking to replace all of your infrastructure on-site. It is very effective if you want to consolidate your firewall, analytics, and all that kind of stuff into a single box. It's got a great firewall that's built into there. It does most of the stuff that you need, such as built-in DDoS mitigation. It ticks many boxes for people who don't necessarily have the capability to do that. It is cost-saving instead of taking a separate DDoS protection or buying a firewall if you're looking at a dual hundred-meg type solution. The box probably won't cost you more than £150 a month at maximum, so that's incredibly affordable versus a full-state firewall because everything comes built-in.

Versa is good when you have a heavy branch when building office infrastructure. On the flip side, that's where I'd suggest VMware. If you have one or two main offices, and most people otherwise work remotely, or you have some small overseas sites with five people or something like that, that's where VMware comes into its own.

The most common use case for Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge is its application as an SD-WAN solution. Based on my four years of experience, the best use case is when customers need SD-WAN connectivity between branches along with a secure solution. Versa offers a comprehensive solution that combines connectivity and security. It suits customers who want reliable connectivity between branches and need a complete security package.

Versa also utilizes Secure Access Service Edge (SASE), which can be integrated with its SD-WAN solution. We have already deployed SASE alongside SD-WAN, allowing users to connect to the company's business applications in the office or remotely. This integration between SASE and SD-WAN is beneficial, as we have tested it with various customers.

Versa provides analytics, but the reporting features have some shortcomings. Improvements are needed in this area to enhance the analytics' overall user experience and effectiveness. Sometimes, issues or bugs arise when using AI for device profile provisioning.

I have been using Versa for four years.

Versa's stability is quite good for simple use cases, and I would score it an eight to nine. However, stability can depend heavily on the hardware used for complex deployments. Versa is compatible with third-party hardware, and we have deployed it using Dell and Lenovo products.

I recommend using Dell for better stability, which typically scores around seven to eight. In contrast, we’ve encountered issues with Lenovo hardware, often needing to return devices for stability problems, scoring it around six to seven. Overall, using Dell has resulted in much better stability for our deployments.

When deploying new branches, you can easily add new devices. Just provision the new device, and the setup is complete. While the deployment process is straightforward, ensuring proper sizing for the secure hub is important. If you plan to scale up to twenty or one hundred devices, you must use high-quality hardware for the hub. 

We work with small to medium-sized businesses and large enterprises, including those in the U.S. with over one hundred branches. Versa is a strong solution for these scenarios. We have successfully set up Versa for up to fifty branches. For medium to large businesses, I recommend Versa if the use case involves straightforward SD-WAN with added security. If the use case is relatively simple, Versa can still effectively meet those needs.

FlexVNF’s main competitors include Fortinet and VeloCloud from VMware. Both are strong contenders in the SD-WAN space. Fortinet provides a good match for security features, making it a solid competitor alongside FlexVNF.

The setup process is straightforward, allowing users to activate the system via email or a URL link. It’s simple enough that non-IT users can follow the instructions. There have been some issues, particularly when registering devices to the controller. We’ve had to open support tickets, which seems to be a common problem. While the setup is generally easy, occasional failures require assistance from support for troubleshooting.

Versa offers cloud deployment, meaning the controller is managed by Versa. While the devices can be on-premises, the controller operates as a Versa product in the cloud.

While Versa offers an on-premises option, I haven't deployed it yet. In my country, the cloud solution for the controller is highly regarded. Although we haven’t implemented the on-premises solution, Versa can also provide that option.

Versa has an API that could potentially support future AI integration, but the Versa team has not provided any updates regarding AI capabilities. Currently, no information indicates that Versa is suitable for integration with AI solutions.

Regarding pricing, Versa is competitively positioned in the medium price range compared to Fortinet and Palo Alto. Our customers are generally satisfied with Versa's pricing during renewal. Versa's renewal costs are reasonable, making it appealing for customers who plan to invest in the solution for six to seven years without facing steep renewal fees. In contrast, with Fortinet, we’ve noticed that renewal prices can be as high as purchasing new hardware. 

Versa’s approach to network optimization focuses on application-based steering. This means you can prioritize specific applications like Zoom or Teams during critical activities like conference meetings. Versa uses this application-based steering to select the best path among multiple links, ensuring that important applications receive the necessary bandwidth.

Rather than optimizing solely for the network, the applications are emphasized. You can decide which applications to prioritize, while others may receive lower priority. For instance, if some applications experience issues, you might still be fine with them, but it’s crucial to ensure that essential applications like video conferencing remain unaffected by network congestion. 

Versa is a great option if you have a simple solution using SASE, such as connecting branches and adding a security layer. Based on my deployment experience, I can recommend Versa for this use case. It addresses the needs of organizations looking to enhance security while maintaining straightforward connectivity between branches.

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

Our company primarily uses Versa FlexVNF for SD-WAN, and we also explore its security features so that we can secure our infrastructure with the flexibility of SD-WAN.

The regular processing feature of Versa FlexVNF is good. When creating a tunnel in Versa and providing internet access, it creates two separate tunnels for different types of traffic. This segregation is very helpful.

The solution's current customer support is not that good. So, they need to improve that. Also, the solution's UI is quite complex, so they need to simplify it.

I have been using Versa FlexVNF for two months. Also, I am a customer of the solution using its latest version.

Versa FlexVNF is a scalable product because it does not have any hardware dependencies. This makes it a versatile solution that can be easily integrated with any firewall. This integration further enhances the scalability of the product. The testing solution we used involved only three individuals. As our enterprise is not a core IT enterprise and we are supporting another application, only three people were involved in the testing. So, one person was from Versa, and two were from our side.

During the testing phase, Versa provided a dedicated person for support. However, I cannot comment on their operational support since I have only heard that their availability is not 24/7, and their support is not good. Since we have not got the devices operational, I am not the correct person to comment on it.

Our company has in-house applications, and we want to make them available for users. So, we want to always make it available, and we don't want our applications to have any downtime. Also, we want to control the traffic coming through our applications.

On one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy, I rate the solution's deployment process a seven out of ten. Considering our company's requirements, the deployment process took two days for us to design the deployment scenario. Since the department process was not hectic, it took less time. We have deployed the solution on the cloud and on-premises. Regarding the people involved in the deployment process, only two or three people were involved in the testing part.

It is neither cheap nor expensive. I rate the pricing a five out of ten on a scale where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

My recommendation of the solution to other users would purely be based upon the requirement of the users. If they are getting their requirements fulfilled, they can use the tool. Sometimes, I have seen users not wanting it for the connectivity facility it provides but for security.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

We use it for MPLS connectivity, VPNs, etc.

I like all the features. We utilize different LAN, bandwidth transferring, bandwidth balancing, and mappings. We use it as a centralized solution, and use the same product at all our locations.

There are limitations when you connect from multiple locations. It does not work as expected.

If you have more than 400 users, then it will choke. It will not perform as expected.

I would like them to stabilize the wireless solution and have more security features in the next release.

I've been using Versa FlexVNF for almost three years.

The stability is okay. That is, it's stable when you have fewer locations. When it comes to multiple locations, I don't recommend this device.

It is scalable, but there might be some issues with scalability if you don't have an additional device.

On a scale from one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I would rate technical support at six. They are knowledgeable, but they do not respond quickly; there have been many delays.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy, and I would rate it at 4.5 on a scale from one to five, with one being difficult and five being easy.

One person can handle the maintenance of Versa FlexVNF because hardly any maintenance is needed.

Price wise, it's more expensive than is the competition. I would give pricing a rating of three out of five.

Overall, I would rate Versa FlexVNF at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We primarily use the solution for SD-WAN with the built-in firewall, the NG firewall.

They are pretty transparent on every layer of the networking to build the SD-WAN. Troubleshooting is easier due to that. They, it seems like, do not try to cover or wrap the SD-WAN into my interface, which would make it difficult to troubleshoot. They really open up every part of the technology so that if there is an issue, it would be easier to troubleshoot.

It's very powerful, especially for engineering teams. And yet, they manage also to keep it from being too complex.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It has very good reliability.

The product is scalable. 

The interface could be simpler. There have been improvements over time, however, it could be improved further. While nothing is lacking in terms of information, if they could make it simpler for non-technical users, it would be easier to understand and could be used by more people. 

We started using the solution about a year ago.

It's stable. The cloud basically is only for orchestration. Once the equipment has been set up it's going to be running well, and quite independently. Even if there is an update in the cloud,  for example, the path to the cloud is gone, it will still suffice. It would still run. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is pretty good, actually. The internal processing is light. It could scale much bigger than compared to the other SD-WAN solutions that I'm aware of. Even the small unit actually could scale for 1,000 branches already. 

They're helpful, however, we actually rarely use them. It's almost never happened, in terms of having any issues. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Mostly, customers rely on the engineering team. They just start to run it once it is deployed. Normally, the setup is headed by the engineering team.

The deployment really depends on how fast the rollout would be needed. The deployment is easy, however, it depends on the location. We could deploy a few units a day, for example, as it all can be handled and secured on the cloud from the orchestrator. We could easily deploy 20 a week unless we are talking about moving to different locations.

The value of SD-WAN is that it can cover a wide area. Therefore, in most cases, the delay is actually about the delivery of the unit to the location.

Once the hardware arrives at the location and the network connectivity from the provider is ready, it would take just minutes to turn it up. The readiness of the place, the readiness of the connection, and any delays in the delivery due to the courier or the shipper all play a role in how long the deployment will be.

Normally we have two or three people handle deployment.

Usually, we deploy to small branches of ten to 30, depending on the office size.

The ROI is not really calculated. I would say the experience of the user improves a lot. This means that always come combining the MPLS plus the internet, for example, users would enjoy bigger bandwidth. Their application or file transfer is faster. It's not only about something that could be quantified. The better experience on the user side is definitely something we can see, however.

Price-wise, it's quite fair with the list of capabilities on offer. If we use the features a lot that enables the NG firewall for SMO. It's much cheaper than having a separate SD-WAN unit and an external firewall. All the package features if all put in together and enabled, make it more competitive compared to the other brands. 

The price can be negotiable. The cost depends on the size. It includes firewall features. It includes tech support from the vendor's side. The licensing system with the subscription, it's all included.

I really like the option to include the NG firewall due to the fact that, in total, that would be cheaper compared to having an external firewall and the SD-WAN unit.

We're a Versa partner.

I don't recall which version we are using. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I would recommend a field test to new users. Don't just look at the paper. Try to experience it in the live network. Most of the time, that could really make a difference. If customers would like to know about it, the better way is to have a proof of concept or live demo in their network running for a certain period, with their network running on top of this SD-WAN as that's what really actually makes the difference. They could see the improvement firsthand. They could see that the bandwidth is increased. Or find out if it really could replace the MPLS with the internet. Those are the things that on paper, sometimes we could not really feel or know. 

We use the solution for SD-WAN as well as SD-WAN plus security NGFW, UTM. We use the combination of these three as they relate to multi-sites. 

I especially like the flexibility of being able to choose the license based on customer application requirements. Also, when it comes to the hardware, certain support or different switches will apply. However, the software's flexibility does come with a price for the customer. There is flexibility when it comes to upgrading to a higher bandwidth or license, as well as when combining with the security solution, NGFW and UTM. 

To sum up, the flexibility is a great feature. 

I don't have issues with the hardware, as the requisite capacity is visible in the data sheets. All the details in the data sheets are accounted for. But, I find myself confused when it comes to combining this with the software. I have not come across documentation on the Versa website which would provide information about the parameters for selecting the appropriate license. For this we are assisted by the solution's design engineer and the Versa team. I do what I can as a project manager and make the best suggestions I am capable of concerning the competition. 

Future releases should contain AI for the voice feature. SSL VPN is lacking in the solution. I wish to see this in the near future. 

I have been with Tata Communications for approximately two years respect this product. I have made a good contribution to the onboarding of Versa FlexVNF and the development of SD-WAN products in Tata Communications. As I have been working with Spectra on the same product, I can say that I have been doing so with the solution for this length of time. 

I have not encountered bugs in the solution. 

I have not come across limitations in the solution. I have worked on the 300 series, the 700 series and the 1000 series, but there are no limitation within the box. The important thing is that the combination of the box and the license provide the correct solution. That's what comes with this. Otherwise, we must consider the hardware and configuration details in respect of the throughput authorization when it comes to 100 Mbps for NGFW or 400 for UTM. These are especially present in terms of the configuration of the box against the bandwidth.

As I am in product management, I have not had occasion to contact technical support. This would be in the purview of team delivery, support, provisioning or engineering teams. Occasionally, technical account managers also provide assistance. 

The installation process was complex. Templates are there and we can pretty much put those straight into the Versa director and push them for other sites. A single template spokes other templates. This would involve a change in bandwidth or configuration. We make the changes on the template and push for those particular sites. So, when it comes to Versa director and analytics, it's pretty simple.

While I cannot provide too much commentary on the price, I feel it to be fair for the moment. 

I should note that Citrix or Cisco Meraki are coming out with more competitive prices. The comparative pricing can pose an issue for us, as we are the ones who supply the solution. While we make adjustments to the solution, the majority of our customers have right templates and feel that they are able to get the same SD-WAN solution that fulfills our requirements for, perhaps, a price of 20 to 30 percent less than what we provide on Versa. 

My advice is that a person come with data that meets his needs, which would provide hima good basis for selecting the correct sizing.  

I rate Versa FlexVNF as an eight-and-a-half out of ten, owing to the issues concerning the size of the box configurations and licensing. But, this rating also reflects the flexibility of choice afforded by the solution, as well as its futuristic approach that allows one to upgrade it to the next level of technology. It is very close to the next level of technology and one can actually upgrade his solution anytime over the cloud and to the central processor without the need to visit the field. That's simplicity.