WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

Our company used the solution for endpoint detection response. 

When you download the executable file from the internet, it automatically sandboxes to make sure it's not doing anything incorrectly. It is a nice feature that any EDR should do. 

The solution is a bit confusing and there are unusual complications with setup. 

I used the solution for four months at my previous employer. 

The solution is quite stable with no observed issues. 

The scalability is not an issue because you just add more licenses as you get more endpoints. 

I used the solution at my previous employer but use other EDR solutions at my current employer. 

There were some complications with the setup that I have not experienced with other EDR solutions. 

We worked with a third party because some devices would not accept the solution and we wanted someone there to help us troubleshoot. You're supposed to be able to deploy from the cloud but we had to physically double check that the solution installed on each device.

Two members of our team handled the deployment process with a third party representative. We experienced some issues along the way such as devices not accepting the solution. 

There should have been a better method for deployment and it took a long time. It is unclear if the issue was with our vendor or the solution, but the process wasn't very nice. 

The solution is a bit more expensive than other options. 

A license costs around $180 for a three-year commitment. For comparison, Microsoft Defender costs $164 over three years but you are only locked into a one-year commitment. 

There isn't anything revolutionary about the solution's technology. It does what other EDR's do. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

Our main use case for WatchGuard Firebox is to protect companies from Internet threats.

The most effective and helpful features of WatchGuard Firebox, especially when purchased with the full suite of applications, are its bundled applications and subscriptions for comprehensive protection against various threats. It is essential to renew licensing and subscriptions to safeguard against potential penetrations.

One area for improvement could be making the interface even more user-friendly.

I have been working with WatchGuard Firebox for a couple of years.

WatchGuard support is generally helpful and does a good job, although occasionally I may need to call for clarification on some technical matters.

Other products like Fortinet and Palo Alto have had security flaws, but WatchGuard Firebox fits within the budget of the client.

I also work with Cisco, and Cisco's CLI is highly customizable, though it requires more time to learn initially. Cisco's support is also quite good.

The main difference between Cisco and WatchGuard Firebox is the support structure. With Cisco, you can directly communicate with the manufacturer, while with WatchGuard Firebox, support is through local channels only, without the option to directly contact WatchGuard via email or open a ticket.

Managing WatchGuard Firebox is easy for experienced users. Initial setup and deployment typically take a couple of days, including preconfiguration before installation on-site to avoid potential issues.

The price of WatchGuard Firebox is generally lower than Cisco, making it easier to sell to customers. However, if the price were slightly lower than it is now, it would be even more appealing. Some customers underestimate the importance of the subscriptions included with the boxes, but with experience, I have seen how critical they are for protecting against hackers and data breaches.

WatchGuard Firebox works well for network security, email protection, and phishing prevention. It is cost-efficient and offers features like EDR or XDR without being overly expensive.

Overall, I would rate WatchGuard Firebox as a seven out of ten. It is a solid tool.

We use WatchGuard Firebox for the site's firewall and VPN solution. The WatchGuard supports remote gateway and mobile VPNs. WatchGuard Firebox serves as the primary firewall for the site.

The solution has many security features. We have an intrusion provision system and filtering and block filtering. These features have been enabled, and we have created services around them.

WatchGuard has several limitations, particularly concerning throughput and performance, and management, firmware updates, and customer support need improvement. The level of support from WatchGuard is not as good as what we get from Cisco and other vendors. The response time is high even in times of priority issues. 

Moreover, the solution doesn’t have deep filtering. This limitation affects packet analysis, traffic analysis, and traffic monitoring, particularly regarding troubleshooting. On the other hand, Fortinet Firewall offers a deep level of troubleshooting and packet filtering. This allows us to obtain detailed information in scenarios like drops or disruptions to understand where the issue occurred, whether with the customer or on our end.

WatchGuard cannot perform packet captures for multiple IPs simultaneously, restricting us from achieving them individually. Due to these limitations, we are considering migrating to Fortinet.

I have been using this solution since 2018.

The solution is stable, as I have been using a couple of devices without any restart since 2018, and there has been no downtime for these devices.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

The level of support from WatchGuard is not as good as what we get from Cisco and other vendors. The response time is high even in times of priority issues. It doesn’t have deep filtering. This limitation affects packet analysis, traffic analysis, and traffic monitoring, particularly regarding troubleshooting. On the other hand, Fortinet Firewall offers a deep level of troubleshooting and packet filtering. This allows us to obtain detailed information in scenarios like drops or disruptions to understand where the issue occurred, whether with the customer or on our end.

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup around six on a scale of one to ten, one being hard and ten being easy.

WatchGuard is better when compared to other firewalls. It is affordable for a midsized company.

WatchGuard is affordable, with features for individual customers, end-users, and midsized companies. However, big businesses with growth and an increasing workload have to migrate.

I rate the solution’s pricing a four on a scale of ten, one being lowest and ten being highest.

We don’t know much about what's happening in the traffic pattern. We will have the opportunity to configure everything. We can use the firewall for dynamic routing and various other tasks. However, despite its capabilities and offerings, there are still some limitations. WatchGuard doesn’t offer deep-level packet filtering or in-depth packet analysis for companies with numerous applications. WatchGuard is a good solution if you require a comprehensive analysis of your organization’s activities within your budget.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use the solution as an internet gateway. With its help, we can establish the connection between our company's HQ and branch.

The solution provided us with site connections and internet policies.

The solution's valuable feature is its pricing which is better than other competitors.

The performance of the solution's processor needs to be faster than other vendors. Also, it is time-consuming to configure it whenever multiple policies are involved. This area needs improvement as well.

I have been using the solution since 2012.

The solution is highly stable. I rate its stability a nine.

We have around 200-300 solution users in our organization. I rate its scalability a nine.

The solution's technical support is excellent.

Fortinet is faster to configure and access policies than WatchGuard.

The solution's initial setup process was simple, as I already have experience using it. It takes a month to complete. The process involves setting up the solution in a lab. Later, deploying it in a production environment once it meets all the configuration requirements.

Initially, we took help from a third-party vendor to deploy the solution. Afterward, we did it in-house. It requires three to four network administrators for deployment and two network administrators for maintenance.

The solution is worth buying.

I rate the solution's pricing as an eight.

I rate the solution as an eight. It offers more variable license bundles and has high availability than the other products.

In Italy, small and medium-sized enterprises are prevalent, with fewer than 20 devices being used in most companies. As a result, we typically use entry-level routers such as the T25 or T45.

We sell security and management services for our clients' structures, which allows us to provide visibility into events and the flow of actions taken by both the users and our company. We are pleased to have this tool within the Firebox toolset, as it enables us to show customers what is happening during an incident, as well as to continually monitor the structure.

Management and visibility are the most valuable features.

Visibility with an app that could extract or connect the data without entering Firefox directly would be an improvement.

I am looking for tools that can improve mobile security because our Firebox router mainly focuses on physical perimeter security. While we can use VPN to connect laptops to the network, mobile phones, and tablets can only rely on wireless networks, which don't provide direct endpoint security. Therefore, I believe there is a need for additional measures to connect mobile devices securely to the Firebox router.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is generally stable, although we have encountered a few hardware issues that were promptly resolved by replacing the affected devices.

The support is great and specialized.

The initial setup is straightforward. Our deployment strategy is simple. We require a couple of people. First, we set up the structure and connect the Firebox, whether it's a new installation or a replacement for other devices. Next, we prepare the configuration, LAN, and rules. Then, we make a brief stop to switch the core device to the customer's structure. After that, we move to each endpoint and use VPN or other tools to complete the setup. The direct operation on the endpoint site takes less than an hour, and the preparing phase another two to four hours.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We are utilizing an MSP licensing model and are content with the minimal amount spent on the devices rather than committing to long-term licensing.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

The maintenance of a simple structure is easy.

I recommend trying WatchGuard Firebox directly but keep in mind that the wireless devices can only be connected to the wireless network.

Our client deploys WatchGuard Firebox and helps to establish VPN connection between multiple files. 

I find this solution very easy to manage. The web manager and Firebox key features are particularly impressive for cloud applications. That's why I often recommend this solution to our clients. It has good threat management capabilities and works against different types of threats.       

I think one area for improvement in this solution would be enhancing communication with tools like Active Directory. This would make the tool easier to integrate and effective for users.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for the past eight years.

The solution has been stable without any noticeable bugs.

I find WatchGuard Firebox to have medium scalability, serving around ten medium-sized clients with approximately five hundred users each. 

I find the service support to be slow at times, especially in terms of response and case resolution. 

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup as ten out of ten, since it is very easy.

The deployment process is quite fast, usually taking just one day. To deploy the solution, we follow the steps outlined in the deployment guide, which are straightforward and easy to follow.

WatchGuard Firebox is typically deployed on-premises in our client's organizations.

I would rate the pricing at seven out of ten. As for the licensing costs, we typically have yearly licenses for our clients, but there are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees.

I always recommend using WatchGuard Firebox in our projects because it's straightforward to manage and deploy.

I would rate this product an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution to protect our systems. We also use it for real-time detection.

The tool provides automated responses. It has a lot of features.

The interface is not the best. I do not like it. The reports must also be improved.

I am currently using the solution.

I have contacted the support team a couple of times. They solve our problems in a few hours.

Positive

The product is easy to install and manage. It is connected to our SOC.

The solution is cheap. I am satisfied with the price.

Our partners have asked us to try using FortiEDR. I don't know if we will change because we are quite happy with WatchGuard.

Our partners integrated the solution with our SOC. We have not used the threat prioritization features. We can install the program. It is only used while developing applications. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Security use cases for on-premises deployment involve safeguarding my customer's internet connections to ensure the safety of their digital assets.

I appreciate the intuitive design of the dashboard, which is both clear and self-explanatory. Additionally, the ongoing efforts to update the product and the valuable feedback received from technical support hold significant importance for me. Centralization is a crucial feature for me as it allows me to have all sites and customers accessible under a single click, not limited to just one.

I believe there is room for improvement in policies, with the potential to enhance the margins further.

I have been familiar with WatchGuard products for over fifteen years.

In terms of stability, I haven't encountered any significant issues, so I would rate it a solid ten out of ten.

It is very scalable, I would rate it eight out of ten. The majority of my clients are businesses with a maximum of up to twenty-five users.

If I encounter any challenges, I promptly create a support ticket with WatchGuard. Typically, within less than twelve hours, I receive a response from a technical expert addressing the issue. In general, problems are resolved in less than forty-eight hours. I am highly satisfied with this aspect.

I experimented with Fortinet and SonicWall years ago, and the experience was not particularly successful. Consequently, I transitioned to WatchGuard due to my longstanding involvement in the project spanning almost two decades. The interface has consistently seemed logically structured to me. In comparison to other solutions where I often find myself needing to look up and search again, the technical aspects may be similar, but the installation, control, updates, management, and monitoring processes are significantly more straightforward for me with WatchGuard than with its competitors.

The installation process was relatively straightforward for me.

The deployment time varies depending on the site and the assistance available. For clients without an on-premise systems administrator, which is usually me, the process is quicker. However, for clients with their own IT systems administrator, deployment tends to take a bit longer due to the explanations and training required. The duration can range from a few hours to half a day.

Over the years, the costs have increased, especially since I cater to very small businesses. While they comprehend the necessity of investing in network protection, these features have become relatively expensive. I would rate it six out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.