WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

I actually use the host ransomware prevention feature of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response, and we haven't had issues with that. This is currently maintained by our partner in the WatchGuard management. We are a town hall, but there is an enterprise provider that is currently managing all the WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response installation.

I am not familiar with the automated remediation tools in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response and how they help in reducing manual intervention because this is managed by our provider.

I have not yet utilized the cloud sandboxing feature in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response.

The centralized visibility and control of endpoints in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response helps coordinate cybersecurity, but this is managed by another tool that is installed in our PCs. It is installed and configured, but we don't use it because the main feature is with the EDR. It is configured but not used as a model per se.

I would like to improve WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response, but I don't manage it directly. The main problem that WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response has is that they use several tools to do the same tasks, and they are sometimes very complicated to use and very slow.

For example, we had Palo Alto deployed 10 years ago, and there were many things that were better managed by Palo Alto than the tools we currently have in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. The main concern is about managing tools and having a unified management model for managing the firewalls and response. They have many web interfaces that do many things, but they don't have one tool that does all the things that a firewall should do.

I have been working with WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response for about three years.

The deployment for WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response took about three months because we deployed many components around the system. Previously, we had Palo Alto, and we changed all the structures to WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. We changed VPN, detection mode for several things such as HTTP navigation, and many other products. The final substitution took about one month. The most delayed deployment was the VPN because we have around 1,000 users.

The technical support of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is generally helpful. We have had two issues related to the VPN, and we experienced 24/7 activity from their team. Their support was very powerful as they responded very quickly and stayed online with us for two days.

However, when we find something strange in the firewall, such as access issues or configuration changes, the WatchGuard team has to recompile some new features or make a new deployment to our installation to solve the problem. This was not the case with Palo Alto. They are very powerful in this sector, but they have some issues in the way they manage the firewall system.

Two years after the deployment, we have found that WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is more difficult to manage than Palo Alto and Fortinet. Our biggest concern is not about price but about management.

The installation and implementation process of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response was handled as a part-time job by one person.

I am satisfied with the licensing cost and pricing of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response because we came from Palo Alto, which is a very expensive firewall. When we tried to renew the Palo Alto license, the cost was beyond any reasonable range. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response seemed very powerful and appeared to be a good solution, as recommended by our partner. At that time, we had several options, including Fortinet.

I have not seen any positive impact or benefits for my company from using WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 7.

WatchGuard Firebox is a firewall and security product.

WatchGuard Firebox provides benefits in terms of security, time saving, resource saving, and cost savings. The price-to-quality ratio is reasonable.

There is room for improvement in WatchGuard Firebox regarding customization and AI functionality. Pricing is another area that could be addressed in future releases.

I have been working with WatchGuard firewalls for approximately 20 years.

My overall experience with WatchGuard's technical support is good. They are responsive, and I would rate their support as a 9 out of 10.

Positive

The deployment process for WatchGuard Firebox is straightforward. Implementation requires approximately half a day, and only one person from my side is needed to complete the process.

WatchGuard Firebox is beneficial in terms of finance and provides return on investment through cost reductions.

I work with other vendors aside from WatchGuard depending on customer needs. Sophos is an alternative vendor I use on rare occasions compared to WatchGuard.

I work with WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention in addition to WatchGuard Firebox. My overall experience with software in the IT sphere is quite extensive. I am in a partnership with WatchGuard. 

We use it for data loss prevention, firewall, and malware protection.

WatchGuard Firebox has excellent documentation. The setup and documentation are the best features. WatchGuard Firebox helps simplify aspects of the job for my clients. The features of WatchGuard Firebox are most valuable for maintaining network security.

Several areas of WatchGuard Firebox have room for improvement, including AI, UI, pricing, support, and implementation integration.

I have six months of experience with WatchGuard Firebox.

I rate the stability for WatchGuard Firebox highly.

WatchGuard Firebox handles scalability well.

WatchGuard Firebox does help reduce bottlenecks. The reduction in system bottlenecks is significant. When comparing WatchGuard Firebox with other vendors such as Fortinet, SonicWall, Palo Alto, and Sophos, WatchGuard Firebox performs competitively.

The deployment of WatchGuard Firebox is straightforward with no significant challenges.

I'm using it in the banking sector only. Basically, I'm using it for security and other purposes, including data loss prevention. Security is the main purpose in banks.

Nowadays, we are using small models for SD WAN also, depending on security purposes. Basically, we have received a good return on investment.

The basic problem is that for every firewall in India, there is a need for a one-year or two-year subscription. That is the main issue for all users. Particularly in India, the cost for renewal after three years is 75% of the hardware cost, which is a significant problem.

I've been using VoiceBot for the last two years.

It's scalable for us. If we're going for more concurrent users, we need to change the entire box. In that case, they provide a discount for replacing the old box. I think it involves seven or eight users.

The technical support is good. Their distributor is in Mumbai, and they arrange everything about support. In case we need the same development PeerSpot or engineers on-site.

Neutral

It depends on the company, however, it usually takes about two hours, not more than that. I have a team of specialists for this, consisting of three people.

Only three or four people are involved. It relies on online support by remote access, not on-site visits.

I don't know the current cost. It's all imported products. It's not assembled in India. It's expensive us here.

Currently, I'm using WatchGuard. I'm also using pfSense in some cases.

The major problem is pricing and licensing loss. In India, the cost for renewal after three years is 75% of the hardware cost, which is a significant problem. Your review may be available to third parties and on third-party websites.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The solution is used when you want to handle policies with the file. There are different ways you can use it, like in the firewall rules and in proxy rules, and to secure emails. The tool was used very much when there were emails with other set files, and then it would all be checked in the firewall.

It is a basic tool tool, and it does very well for what it is supposed to do. It does simple checks against signatures. I think it is very much what it needs to be, and it is a basic tool that you just use.

There were a little bit of problems with the tool's updates, making it an area where improvements are needed. Sometimes, the firewalls did not get updated in the databases.

I have been using WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus for over ten years.

The tool is so simple to use. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The scalability depends on how many firewalls you have, and you can put every firewall in it which takes part in the gateway on device checking. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

In my company, there are around 50 people who use the tool. My company also has sister concerns and head offices using the tool. I know that sister concerns are using the same WatchGuard devices as the main company.

I don't think I need any technical support from the website, as it is a basic product. You just plug it in where you need it and then use it. I went through some basic training, and after that, I don't think I ever had to ask someone something. You just put it on and make sure that it can connect to the outlet server.

I know about a lot of different tools, but I have been working with WatchGuard for almost all of my career, as it offers services with which you just connect to the ISPs and firewalls, after which you can put the settings on, but for most of my career, I have been working with WatchGuard.

During the product's installation phase, you just put the tool in the right place, and it works.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of minutes. The installation process is so basic that I don't even remember what you need to do. You just put the tick marks in the tool and ask the tool to use them. In the rules, where you see the files go through is where you can think over what to do with the files. With the tool, you just need to put it on, and then the default rules make sure that there is some indication that something is wrong.

My company manages everything associated with the tool by myself. I was also involved in the tool's maintenance. As a small team, we all can do it.

Every pair has a license, especially for commercial products. For what we use, the tool's price has been reasonable, but it is not the cheapest. The tool has been quite reasonable.

The tool's cost includes various things, like licenses and support. If you buy basic licenses for the device, everything is included, making it easy to use. If one is very expensive and ten is absolutely cheap, then I rate the tool's price as a six.

It is the basic starting tool. We used different tools in the company. In our gateway, we used WatchGuard because we used WatchGuard's firewalls. It was very easy to set it up. It was used so that if there was anything you needed, you could just use the tool, and then we had different tools for workstations.

The tool is a basic product. You usually start with it, and you make sure that everything goes through your devices. If there is a possibility to check the file that is going through your firewall, you do it. If you catch something, then it is very good, and it is much easier to do when no user has access to it. You just need to use the tool at the start, as it makes the end part easier to manage. It doesn't distract your attention from other tasks. It just works, and you don't need to distract yourself.

If users are downloading something from somewhere, the tool makes sure that the easy issues don't get through. Everything else can work a little less because it takes the easy issues out, so it is the backbone for doing the checks. When it can do its checks and block the infected files, it does it very well and easily. When there are different cases where it cannot act as an antivirus gateway that cannot touch files, then you may need different tools, especially if you don't use WatchGuard products for your emails, so you will need to have something on the email side of things. If you are using web emails and trying to transfer them through your firewalls, then it checks the files and says what is not good.

There are bad elements trying to find different ways to get the files through, and they already know their bad deeds very well. They are finding ways to pass your checks and basic things, and so they are always training their people to find better tools to help them in their job to find what needs to be accessed, making it the biggest challenge for the tool to overcome. The tool is good at the start, but it is not so good until the end. You need to be vigilant about changes. I think what is needed is that one gets a view of his or her network so that you know what is happening in your network. Antivirus and firewall products can be a part of our network, and they provide logs so you can see the logs and what is happening in your network. Providing the big picture of your network is what I think we need to do a little bit of a job now.

I have not used the tool's AI features. Someday, I may use it.

It is a very good product for how it works and does its job, but it is not an all-inclusive solution. It does its job very well, and it is quite easy to put to use. You need to get different views of what is happening in your network and what is coming into your network. Suppose the network traffic is going to interrupt it. If you don't go to the SSE proxy settings or you aren't allowed to do it also, then it cannot take all the traffic. If there are possibilities for the traffic to go through, or it cannot check-in, then we need to understand that all the products cannot do it all.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The basic functionality is fantastic. It has been performing well. I generated a report on one machine, using that as the deployment machine. When scanning the network, it discovered machines on the network and deployed the same endpoint protection from that one machine I have on my network. 

I can see all of that from any cloud solution. So far, it has been really easy to install, deploy, and have visibility on the endpoints that I manage.

I'm just looking for a few extra features, which are likely included in XDR and the other additional software services. Mainly the FortiEDR system. If I go through the computer status and look at the risk, it's a very basic assessment. 

Compared to Rapid7, which is a highly rated vulnerability scanner,  WatchGuard is more limited. Rapid7 can give me vulnerabilities like autorun being enabled and provide solutions to fix them. It can also reassess vulnerabilities. 

However, the EDR Core I'm using only gives me basic information, like "File full of fire and execution detection" as a high vulnerability. It doesn't tell me how to fix it, just that it's a risk. It's very minimal in terms of risk assessment. Rapid7 would say, "This software is outdated," or "You're using an older version of SQL." It's much more detailed, whereas EDR Core is more scaled-down and doesn't provide a full assessment.

So, I'd like a few extra features, especially around threat severity assessment.

I have actually been using this for the past two weeks because I'm using it in a test environment before I deploy it into anything. 

I want to make sure that the features they are providing are what my client really wants. Regarding compliance, it really receives no complaints. 

So, with the EDR tool, which is what I currently use, I have deployed it in my business. I checked if it could gather my asset information, software information and scan my machines for any malware. So, that basic functionality is fantastic. 

It has been stable so far. I haven't noticed any performance impact on my machines. My only complaint is that I can't schedule scans. I can only see live monitoring of micro activity. I'd like to schedule scans at specific times, but maybe that feature is only available in higher subscription tiers.

I've only been using it for two weeks. I would like to see more features, especially with the addition of xDR or Endpoint Detection and Response Pro (EDR Pro). 

I'm still exploring what's available in my current plan. Once I understand everything better, I'll reach out to WatchGuard if I need additional features or clarification. 

However,  I requested a full cybersecurity overview from their sales department to explore all their solutions, including network asset management, penetration testing, etc. They'll recommend different subscription tiers based on my needs.

Fortinet is the main competitor, especially when considering firewall and firewall configuration. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE) is also in the mix, as some of our clients use it. These are competitors for a comprehensive security offering, not just antivirus. 

Other competitors who offer similar features like asset management would be Trellix, SentinelOne (formerly McAfee), Microsoft Azure Sentinel, and Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR.

In my experience, WatchGuard shines in deployment simplicity, especially for firewalls and firewall configuration. The renewal process is also easier, and their documentation, support library, and overall support experience are excellent.

The initial setup was easy. It took ten minutes. I read the instructions. I downloaded the software and installed it on my machine in a minute, and it automatically showed up in the cloud console. 

It even identified other machines on the network and asked if I wanted to deploy protection to them. All I had to do was provide admin credentials and let it run. Within half an hour, all the protected machines were visible in the cloud console, including my servers and workstations. 

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. One of the easiest EDR deployments I've ever done.

Some parts are deployed from the cloud. I have my cloud account, but I downloaded the client software that I executed on individual machines. So, it's hybrid, but the core Threat platform is in the cloud. I just installed the client on each machine. So, it's primarily a cloud solution.

I did it all myself. 

The pricing is acceptable and competitive. WatchGuard's pricing is in a range where they can compete effectively with other vendors. WatchGuard offers similar features for a comparable price, making them a good option for small businesses like ours. 

We mainly support small businesses with 1 to 5 users, or maybe up to 50 users at most. That's why we chose WatchGuard. It's cost-effective for small office, home office (SOHO) environments.

It is very easy to use.  It's designed for anyone, even non-technical folks like myself. Anyone could pick it up. It's like "IT for Dummies" - read it, and boom, you're a WatchGuard specialist! But, knowing deployment requirements helps, but WatchGuard makes it user-friendly.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I use the solution in my company mainly for security management and also for VPN.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ease of use. For budgetary purposes, it meets our requirements.

For most of the part, the tool's interface is quite simple. The product can improve in terms of layout to provide easier access and viewing to users, especially for the reports.

One of the things that I think is missing in the tool is the area of managing IPv4 traffic via the IPv6 tunnel. If a few features were added to the tool, it would be great for migrating our network from IPv4 to IPv6.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for three years.

Considering we have even used the tool in our company for the past three years, we don't see much problem with the devices, except with what we call the updating and patching processes, which require some downplay and everything. I think we are quite satisfied with the tool's performance in our company.

I do believe the solution provides devices with a profile for a much higher requirement, but it all depends on the number of users and everything. Currently, my company is not that big, but we are supported by good vendors. I do believe the tool is scalable in terms of the devices because the product does provide a much higher model, but we don't need it because we are quite a small company.

In my company, we have only around 200 users, so we don't have many staff members.

My company contacted the solution's technical support regarding the services, especially when we had some new requirements in terms of configurations and settings or when there were new protocol rules and policies and policies that needed to be implemented. I rate the support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Previously, we used Sangfor, which is a brand from China, for our firewall and internet access management, but we switched to WatchGuard Firebox three years ago. One of the biggest reasons to use WatchGuard Firebox was related to the area of expertise. Our team or staff had experienced some lack of knowledge in Sangfor. After my company figured out which product was easy to learn and after making some comparisons, we decided to go for WatchGuard Firebox.

Compared to Sangfor, I think one of the advantages of WatchGuard Fire is the VPN solution, which includes a certain number of licenses in the package. There is no requirement to purchase more VPN licenses. The con is that Firebox is a part of the existing solution provided by WatchGuard.

When it comes to the product's initial setup phase, our vendors support us, so they handle the setup process. We don't have many issues or problems during procurement or setting up all the configurations for WatchGuard Firebox.

The solution is deployed on the hybrid cloud model.

Last time, we got the tool ready within three days. After we provided all the information that the vendors required regarding the setup and configuration settings that we needed, they set it up within three days. A third party also provides the tool's maintenance services.

From the budgetary perspective, I believe the proposed price for WatchGuard Firebox was certainly much better than the other model that had been promoted to us before because the concerned department in our company procured the tool. I don't have any specific information on it.

I am not sure about the tool's price as the commercial part is under a different department. I think the tool is quite competitive compared to the other brands.

The tool's most effective for managing threats revolves around the area of the reporting services it offers, which is cloud-based reporting, so we can get a lot of information from the services.

I don't have much experience with other models, so I can't speak about WatchGuard Firebox's security. The good thing is that because it is easier to handle, and the company that supports us provides us with a lot of information, it is easier for us to operate the product.

WatchGuard Firebox VPN features significantly enhance operations, making it easier during COVID-19, when many people work from home. There are very good features, I recall, whereby you can access office resources without requiring employees to come to the office. The tool did help us a lot during COVID-19.

Our company has a data leakage prevention solution for our email. It is quite intuitive, but it's not WatchGuard Firebox.

Whether I would recommend the product or not is something that depends since I work in a small company where the income is not too much. Other companies of similar sizes might find some similarities with our organization, so I can recommend WatchGuard Firebox to such users or businesses. Bigger or corporate users who have much more requirement settings or a large number of users should look for a different brand that can support the large numbers.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to ensure that no data breach, such as credit card details and national insurance numbers, leaves the company. However, we have to allow some information to go through because we send a lot of information to the National Healthcare Service.

If we don't want specific data sent out, the tool will stop that data based on the policy we have allocated to it. It has reduced the risks of sending data where it shouldn't be. I haven't faced any issues with the tool's integration capabilities. 

WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention needs to improve its support. 

I have been working with the product for eight to nine years. 

I haven't had any issues with the tool's stability, so I rate it a ten out of ten. 

I rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has 380 users who use it daily. 

The tool's support is responsive and very helpful. 

Positive

I chose the tool because it was easy to use and implement. I haven't faced any security breaches since implementing it. 

WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention's deployment is simple. You can complete the policies you want to run in a few hours. Once it's been set up, we only need to analyze it every now and then to ensure it's still functioning as intended.

WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention's pricing is expensive. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to others. It's effective because it stops data from being sent out easily once set up. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.