WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

My experience with WatchGuard Firebox has been that it operates similar to other firewall services available in the market, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet, however, it does not provide the same level of throughput and features. 

We are using it as a firewall, enabling geofencing, creating policies to allow or block traffic, and setting up site-to-site VPN connections on the box. WatchGuard Firebox is deployed on-premises, as it is a hardware box.

The most valuable features of WatchGuard Firebox include everything that a firewall should support, however, they do not quite reach the mark compared to offerings in the market. 

It does support features such as tunnel and policy creation, enabling geofencing and similar functionalities. WatchGuard Firebox simplifies my job through the policies we can define. When we create a policy, it simplifies our workflow, which helps with our overall efficiency.

I hear complaints that the LAN network is slow. It is also difficult to diagnose issues if any devices get compromised; for example, if someone hacks our system, it becomes hard to trace who made changes or accessed the firewall. While it is user-friendly for configuration, troubleshooting is challenging, and they need to improve their system to be more competitive.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for five years and only for one customer.

The stability of WatchGuard Firebox is good. That said, performance does vary. Our on-site team has reported feelings of slowness at times. When we verified up to the firewall, it worked fine, but there are issues with traffic hitting the firewall, which could indicate performance problems related to throughput. 

Since we are using an old firewall, that may be part of the issue. I am not sure how the new devices perform.

In terms of scalability, WatchGuard Firebox rates as five out of ten. When I log into the firewall, the user interface and features compared to newer firewalls are not up to the mark, which includes functionalities such as filtering, web filtering, threat protection, user identity, and UTM features that need improvement.

My experience with WatchGuard's technical support has been that it was hard to get them on the call initially. Finally, we connected with someone, and I would rate their support as eight or nine out of ten once we were able to speak with them. The challenge is getting them on the line.

My role in the initial setup and deployment of WatchGuard Firebox is limited to supporting the existing infrastructure for one customer, as I haven't been involved with any new implementations.

I don't handle the pricing aspect of the solution. 

WatchGuard Firebox is only deployed in one location within my customer's organization, and at the other locations, we are using Meraki and FortiGate. We plan to replace WatchGuard Firebox soon. My impression of the spam blocking capabilities of WatchGuard is not very favorable, as I don't think it is very capable. I haven't noticed effective web ratings or IPS signatures, which may be due to managing an older OS; I'm not certain about the performance of the newer versions. I am not aware of whether the transition to faster ports on WatchGuard Firebox supports maintaining productivity levels during peak usage times. Based on my experience, I would rate WatchGuard Firebox as five out of ten overall.

On-premises

WatchGuard Firebox serves as the main use case for perimeter protection in my company. I use WatchGuard Firebox for perimeter protection as the core of the network, where subnet segmentation is carried out.

We could also add everything related to geolocation services, geolocation of connections, traffic inspection, and network intelligence in terms of how we use WatchGuard Firebox in the core of the network for perimeter protection.

The best features offered by WatchGuard Firebox include the solutions, the ease of use, having a single appliance where I can incorporate practically all security services, and the management seems intuitive and quite easy to me, which is what I would highlight the most.

The ease of using the features of WatchGuard Firebox has made a difference in my day-to-day work as the Firebox configurations are done in an intuitive way, the application of different policies, network management, how very easily I can create a DHCP service for a specific network, and the VPN system is very easy to configure.

WatchGuard Firebox has had a positive impact on my organization because the improvement in security is evident, and economically, it is a product that is at a very good price point, allowing us to easily have remote clients connected via VPN in an extremely easy way with a lightweight client, which has had a very positive impact.

WatchGuard Firebox has simplified aspects of my work, for example, the process of enabling remote work has been advantageous because by deploying an automated Windows agent, it already deploys the VPN client quickly and easily.

I think WatchGuard Firebox could improve by making WatchGuard Cloud functionality more intuitive and by having better speed performance on VPN networks.

My impression of WatchGuard's spam-blocking capabilities is that this might be the weakest point of the product, as it does not have great spam management compared to other competitors in the market, but it has not affected us excessively.

I have not experienced improvements in terms of reduction in system bottlenecks after implementing WatchGuard Firebox.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for seven years.

Based on my experience, I consider WatchGuard Firebox to be a stable solution.

I find that WatchGuard Firebox's scalability adapts perfectly, and I have not noticed any problem that has prevented me from growing due to Firebox itself.

My experience with WatchGuard Firebox technical support has always been very satisfactory.

I previously used a Cisco solution before WatchGuard Firebox, and I decided to switch because of ease of use, technical features, and price.

I have noticed a return on investment since I started using WatchGuard Firebox because the solution is somewhat cheaper than that of competitors, but I have not had any staff reductions thanks to Firebox.

My experience with the pricing, implementation cost, and licenses of WatchGuard Firebox has been quite happy because it is cheaper compared to other competitors.

Before choosing WatchGuard Firebox, I evaluated other options, including Fortinet.

My advice to other professionals considering using WatchGuard Firebox is to use local management. I have provided this review with an overall rating of 10.

My main use case for WatchGuard Firebox is to protect the perimeter of enterprises.

A quick specific example of how I use WatchGuard Firebox to protect the perimeter is the traffic that is filtered for the users inside to outside. We use services such as botnet detection, virus detection, and IPS. For inside traffic and inbound traffic, we use certificates and different rules that deny DOS attacks and flooding attacks.

In addition to my main use case, I also filter traffic with WatchGuard Firebox.

The best features that WatchGuard Firebox offers include the combination of WatchGuard and the antivirus service, which together work with the threat sync to detect and block attacks in real-time.

The real-time threat detection makes a difference for me because it makes my job easier. We define rules that can take actions faster than an analyst can take them. We have received the alert and we can analyze after the fact what the attack was.

WatchGuard Firebox has positively impacted my organization, but since I am an MSP, I cannot tell you in my current role what benefits it brings to the company. Before my current role, I was at an enterprise that used WatchGuard Firebox, and there were benefits such as traffic control for the users. The best thing that we got from WatchGuard Firebox was to control the traffic of the websites through the web control that Firebox offers.

When I mention web control, I noticed specific outcomes such as reduced bandwidth use, improved productivity because employees did not spend time on websites such as Facebook or YouTube, and we saved money because we did not need to use another feature or an external proxy to apply this web block.

I think WatchGuard Firebox can be improved, especially the WatchGuard System Manager, which I believe was a first attempt to administrate Fireboxes but has been forgotten over time. It needs to be improved with updated features, but I understand that WatchGuard is trying to move toward cloud administration, which I do not prefer because you lose a lot of control when it is only administrated on the cloud.

I would add that more improvements are needed in the WatchGuard Server Center, such as where you can add the users, reporting of the interaction that the user does, and filters on what users are assigned to what Firebox.

The EPDR on mobile devices has been improved, which is another needed improvement for WatchGuard Firebox.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for seven or eight years.

As for stability, WatchGuard Firebox has not had issues with downtime or reliability, but the WatchGuard Cloud has.

The scalability of WatchGuard Firebox depends on the study that you have to do before actually buying a Firebox.

My experience with customer support is that I have interacted with them, and they are good technicians who speak both English and Spanish.

I have not previously used a different solution, as I have always been using WatchGuard since I work with them.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that I think the price is acceptable for companies that do not have a lot of resources to spend on cybersecurity, as WatchGuard Firebox can give you a lot of protection on one single license.

Before choosing WatchGuard Firebox, we evaluated Cisco Firepower.

My advice to others looking into using WatchGuard Firebox is to make an accurate study of the bandwidth and the users they expect to be used on their site and evaluate the devices that cover those values.

Regarding WatchGuard Firebox's AI capabilities, I do not have much opinion about it. It helps on detections, but regarding the action that it has to take, I do not see it in my work because I do not trust the AI.

In terms of WatchGuard Firebox's AI capabilities regarding accuracy and reliability, there have been a few false positives, but it is because it is a machine. You cannot teach machines to think about the best things for the company. Sometimes it blocks access to websites that are company supported. It has so many changes that we have to apply to fully trust the AI.

I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.

On-premises

My main use case for WatchGuard Firebox is modifying firewall rules and managing the entire university environment. A specific example of how I use WatchGuard Firebox to modify rules or manage the university environment is allowing access from the outside to the internal servers.

I consider the best features that WatchGuard Firebox offers to be the security, flexibility, and strength it has as a firewall. Regarding the security, flexibility, and strength I mention, these features have benefited me in my daily work by having strong IDS protection, protection in terms of the EPDR antivirus platform with WatchGuard's cloud platform, and all the features the tool itself has.

WatchGuard Firebox has positively impacted my organization by providing a reliable and secure environment facing outward, and the ability to manage our internal rules. A concrete example of how that reliable and secure environment has improved the daily work or operations of the university is being able to identify attacks, with WatchGuard Firebox, the firewall, mitigating them has provided more security for the whole university.

The aspects I think could be improved in WatchGuard Firebox include the issue of licenses, as there is no equipment with large resources and the only way to do it is by having a virtual environment and then applying the license there.

I would like to elaborate more on the challenges I have encountered with the licensing system by saying that the license costs could be improved, as they are too high.

I have been working in my current field for two years.

I consider WatchGuard Firebox to be quite stable.

I rate the scalability of WatchGuard Firebox as quite scalable for the infrastructure we currently have.

My experience with WatchGuard Firebox's customer support is that they should have better communication channels.

Before implementing WatchGuard Firebox, I was using MikroTik.

The process of implementing the VPN for external users has been simple; there were no issues.

I have seen a return on investment with WatchGuard Firebox in terms of security.

My experience with the pricing, implementation costs, and licenses of WatchGuard Firebox was not good; there had to be many negotiations and we are still not satisfied with the licensing.

Before choosing WatchGuard Firebox, I evaluated other options, specifically Palo Alto.

My impression of WatchGuard Firebox's spam-blocking capabilities is that they are quite useful, especially the management of the EPDR or EPP of the antivirus platform, which is very effective.

I have noticed a significant reduction in bottlenecks in the systems after implementing WatchGuard Firebox, resulting in quite good performance improvements.

The high-speed ports in WatchGuard Firebox have helped maintain productivity during usage peaks in my organization by remaining stable, with no major issues regarding bandwidth, as it has been quite balanced.

The features of WatchGuard Firebox I consider most valuable for maintaining network security are the IDS and IPS protection for attacks, which are critical for attack mitigation.

My advice to other professionals who are considering using WatchGuard Firebox is that it is an interesting tool in terms of competitiveness with other technologies and it is very secure. I give this product an overall rating of eight out of ten.

On-premises

My main use case for WatchGuard Firebox is MSSP. It depends on the requirements of the customers. For example, we have a food company with two branches. We have an M390 as a main firewall and an M390 high availability as the backup firewall, with two T80s in the branches. We have a VPN for the connections.

WatchGuard Firebox cloud console for remote management is valuable feedback from my technical team. It is very useful, and it is free, whereas other products have a fee.

Ease of use and VPN are how WatchGuard Firebox helps enable remote work for my team and my clients. WatchGuard Firebox is a well-branded company, but it is very behind Fortinet and Check Point, which is how it has impacted my organization positively.

WatchGuard Firebox is adequate, but the commercial policy is poor. I have seen better products regarding the spam blocking capabilities of WatchGuard Firebox, and this has affected my email management negatively.

Customer support is awful, as there is no customer support in Greece, which is why I changed vendors. I recommend changing the leadership in Greece and the distributors.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for about six or seven years.

WatchGuard Firebox is stable.

Customer support is awful, as there is no customer support in Greece, and that is why I changed.

I switched to Fortinet because WatchGuard Firebox is too expensive.

I find the pricing, setup cost, and licensing to be very expensive.

I evaluated Check Point before choosing WatchGuard Firebox.

I advise others looking into using WatchGuard Firebox to not use it.

On-premises

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.

Positive

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.

On-premises

Other

I work with WatchGuard Firebox as a partner. I use WatchGuard Firebox only for firewall.

The most valuable features of WatchGuard Firebox are its simplicity and easy-to-learn approach. It simplifies policy management and firewall management.

WatchGuard Firebox's security module needs improvement; the security service needs to work better and provide security feedback that I could use.

Also, it needs to work better on some features that are at a baseline compared to other solutions or vendors.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for six years.

I rate the stability of WatchGuard Firebox a nine.

I rate the scalability of WatchGuard Firebox a seven because the performance needed from WatchGuard Firebox changes a lot based on the security services or deep inspection enabled.

I rate the technical support of WatchGuard Firebox a nine out of ten.

WatchGuard Firebox's pricing is good and just right.

I have not experienced a reduction in system bottlenecks after deploying WatchGuard Firebox.

WatchGuard Firebox requires sometimes just the upgrade for maintenance. The maintenance of WatchGuard Firebox has become easier in the last year.

My impression of WatchGuard Firebox's spam blocking capabilities is that it is not used. This feature cannot be used because today, no one has an on-premises email server.

I recommend WatchGuard Firebox to other users in small companies because it is simple, stable, and the costs are good and right. However, I think that when a company becomes larger or needs security features like deep inspection, they need to switch to something with more capabilities.

On-premises

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. 

On-premises

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.

The main use cases for the WatchGuard Firebox are to protect our customers' network, VPN connection or IPsec, or SSL VPN, as by default, it's a protection of the network and the users, and servers.

WatchGuard Firebox technical support is very easy for us to contact, and we also have presales engineers such as Jeremy Schramm, who is French and provides excellent technical help; he visits our office one day a month to assist us in trying some solutions.I utilize AI within the WatchGuard Firebox, as we use the interconnection with threat syncs, and AI is implemented; we try to sell our customers XDR or IDR, so there is AI in the product.I have a good impression of the efficiency for threat detection provided by the WatchGuard Firebox, as we have cybersecurity teams and sell security about the product, so we think it is a good product to protect our clients.

I would like to see the WatchGuard Firebox improved because I work with an experimental presales engineer directly, and we have some presentations regarding the SASE project under the XDR solution, so we know the good projects now.The WatchGuard Firebox has certain features, but the challenge is that we have some clients who don't have a network or are only mobile users, which leads us to think the future is in SASE products, not in the WatchGuard Firebox.The mobile coverage should be included with the WatchGuard Firebox, but in some cases, there is no WatchGuard Firebox because the client has no network or all users are in different locations.

I have been working with the WatchGuard Firebox for probably 10 or 11 years, as we are IT resellers and sell all customers these firewalls, so it's the product by default, and all customers we have have by default, Stormshield WatchGuard Firebox.

I find the WatchGuard Firebox stable with no problems; it's performing well.

I find the WatchGuard Firebox scalable, as it's easy to change configurations from this product to another one, although it's always complicated to buy another product and there are no upgrade solutions at a lower price.

WatchGuard Firebox technical support is very easy for us to contact, and we also have presales engineers such as Jeremy Schramm, who is French and provides excellent technical help; he visits our office one day a month to assist us in trying some solutions.On a scale of one to 10, I would rate the technical support of the WatchGuard Firebox a 10.I would recommend the WatchGuard Firebox to other businesses, as it is very easy to communicate with them for support and the presales engineers, who are very easy to work with.

Positive

The only problem we have with the WatchGuard Firebox is about the price or the options that are very expensive for customers, as other firewalls such as FortiGate offer free MFA authentication, so the main trouble is the price of the product.

I find that we have no trouble with the WatchGuard Firebox, as it is very simple to install because we have certified engineer installation, so it's very easy for us.

I have faced challenges with the WatchGuard Firebox regarding price since we work with customers who use the Stormshield product, which is less expensive and French-made, while some products from the USA have left a bad impression, and some customers ask us to find another French or European product.

The main differences between WatchGuard Firebox and other solutions such as FortiGate or Sophos are that I find the product heartbeat in the Sophos product very good; however, in WatchGuard Firebox, there is a similar set of products as firewalls, showing no major difference.

My advice for users looking to start working with the WatchGuard Firebox is that the easiest solution is to realize a POC to test the product, so we can watch and review reports with customers. On a scale of one to 10, I would overall rate the WatchGuard Firebox as a solution a nine.