WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

We have had some difficulty introducing the brand on the market because, in Angola, we have another brand with a more aggressive approach than WatchGuard. The end users prefer other brands like Sophos and Check Point over WatchGuard Firebox. We will soon be an expositor of WatchGuard Firebox. We have some customers that use Panda Security just for endpoints. We have some customers that use WatchGuard Firebox directly or indirectly.

WatchGuard Firebox is the most powerful firewall for Wi-Fi security.

The scalability of the solution needs improvement.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for more than one year.

WatchGuard Firebox is a stable solution.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox ten out of ten for stability.

At the moment we are providing support to five customers.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support team is very good. We have always received quick responses from the support team.

WatchGuard Firebox’s initial setup is very easy. The configuration is easy since the solution is user-friendly and has an intuitive platform and dashboard.

The solution is not expensive and customers pay for a yearly license.

We have a direct relationship with the master distributor of WatchGuard Firebox in Angola and Africa. WatchGuard Firebox is the only solution we work with for firewalls and cybersecurity.

When we start WatchGuard Firebox's deployment, we redirect it to the cloud.

Overall, I rate WatchGuard Firebox ten out of ten.

We use this for our network, mainly for the configuration of rules, such as VPN connections, remote access connections, and application web filtering. I'm a security engineer and we are customers of WatchGuard.

This is a very flexible product without licensing limitations. They offer good classes through Gartner. 

Although this solution is better than others on the market, I'd like to see improvement in the visibility of network traffic. It feels that the web interface is missing some parts, particularly access and configuration. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

We've never had to use the technical support. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Our primary use case for the solution is to protect published resources.

The alarm system is valuable because it alerts us if an external intruder tries to attack published resources.

The user interface can be improved because it is sometimes difficult to manage functionality. For example, the site interface is challenging to customize, and it isn't easy to retrieve information.

We have been using this solution for approximately 15 years.

I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable. I rate it as a seven out of ten, and it is better suited for small and medium enterprises.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. I rate them a nine out of ten because they are very responsive and prompt.

Positive

For good implementation, one week is sufficient to reach an acceptable configuration.

The solution is not expensive. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but the user interface and configuration can be improved.

We use WatchGuard for security services mostly.

WatchGuard has made a few improvements to its user interface which have improved the user experience. 

They also made a few improvements to their cloud platform which are good.

WatchGuard is very user-friendly. It provides us with all of the security services we need. 

When it comes to live monitoring, the user interface could be improved to make things easier.

I have been using WatchGuard for more than 10 years. 

WatchGuard is very stable. I would compare it to other top solutions. We have never experienced any bugs or glitches.

I cannot speak about large deployments, but documentation-wise, WatchGuard is pretty scalable. It is easily scalable, you just have to choose the proper hardware — that's it. 

The technical support is very fast and reliable. They are very professional. We have never had any issues with the technical support team.

I used to use FortiGate. The main difference between FortiGate and WatchGuard is their interfaces. FortiGate uses a web-based interface for configuration, whereas WatchGuard has a special application for management. WatchGuard also has a web-based interface but centralized management is done specially. Otherwise, they're pretty much the same product when it comes to functionality, user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, etc.

The initial setup was very easy, we experience no issues. It comes with very good documentation.

The price of WatchGuard is very good.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give WatchGuard a rating of nine.

I would recommend WatchGuard or something from FortiGate. These two solutions are pretty similar and are very good in terms of quality and functionality. I have personally used both of them and they're great.

I found several features valuable in WatchGuard Application Control such as the HTTP Proxy, DNSWatch, VPN, and HTTPS Content Inspection.

What could be improved in WatchGuard Application Control is its price. It could be cheaper. You always want the best price for any solution, but for security products, pricing is usually on the higher side.

I've been using WatchGuard Application Control for five years now.

WatchGuard Application Control is a stable solution.

WatchGuard Application Control is a scalable solution.

Whenever I need support for WatchGuard Application Control, I'm able to get it from the vendor.

The initial setup for WatchGuard Application Control is easy if you understand its UI and features. I would rate its setup as four out of five.

The licensing model for WatchGuard Application Control is based on the number of users. WatchGuard Application Control also has licensing models with several features.

On a scale of one to five, I would rate the price of this solution a five.

The number of users for WatchGuard Application Control is currently five hundred, in several locations, for several clients.

My advice to others looking into using WatchGuard Application Control is that it's a great solution. It has several features, and every year, WatchGuard implements another solution that complements its security functions. WatchGuard Application Control is always improving through the addition of new features.

My rating for WatchGuard Application Control is nine out of ten because it's a good solution for me.

My company is a partner of WatchGuard.

We're using WatchGuard Firebox for multi-factor authentication (MFA), layer three switching, and to segregate our industrial network from our corporate network.

The most valuable feature of WatchGuard Firebox is its ease of use.

WatchGuard Firebox could improve the speed of updates, such as new features or improvements. However, they are frequently improving the solution in many areas, such as geo-locations, definitions, and web blocking.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for approximately six years.

The stability of WatchGuard Firebox is very stable.

WatchGuard Firebox is very scalable. We're using it in a redundant system with two stacked together. It has good redundancy and is good for failover.

Our whole company of approximately 100 users is using the solution.

The support from WatchGuard Firebox is very good.

Positive

We have one system administrator doing the support and maintenance of the WatchGuard Firebox.

We license the WatchGuard Firebox annually. There are different types of subscriptions available. We are paying approximately $15,000 annually. The cost can increase if you purchase different subscriptions.

You can purchase the solution without support, but I would strongly recommend the support. The support is great.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox an eight out of ten.

I'm a system administrator and we have a partnership with WatchGuard. 

The solution has a useful traffic monitor. You can check if the packet in the unit works and analyze the proof quickly. It's very easy to use and provides good security. 

We've found that sometimes the solution is not easy to understand and we need to bring in some specialist assistance. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is very stable.

We haven't needed to scale so I can't comment on that. 

The support is good but we've had some difficult situations because not everyone in support is good when it comes to specific problems such as VoIP. 

We previously used Cisco but there came a time when we needed to move to a more updated product. 

The solution is difficult to implement without a specialist, especially the first time. It requires an IT technician. It's become easier for us to deploy ourselves now that we've had some experience.

Licensing costs are very reasonable and paid annually. If you need additional options they can be bought separately. 

I mainly use Firebox for SSL, VPN, internet proxy, site-to-site tunnels, and intrusion protection.

Firebox's best feature is the access portal.

Firebox would be improved with integration for endpoint protection solutions.

I've been using Firebox for three years.

Firebox is generally stable, with only some glitches here and there, and its performance is okay.

Firebox is scalable.

WatchGuard's technical support is okay, but they could do more to push knowledge so the customer could solve their own problems.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used an in-house team.

Firebox is priced reasonably.

I would give Firebox a rating of seven out of ten.

It's mainly an internet gateway that is used for internet gateway protection and remote access.

There is room for improvement in the threat protection, data packet inspection, and performance of the solution. Generally, it's just a lower-end product. It does the job but doesn't do it very well.

Compared to Palo Alto, for example, some of the main differences are zero-day protection, performance, deep packet inspection, and App-ID. I'm not really a fan of WatchGuard. We only use it with one client and we're trying to get them to get rid of it. I prefer to use Palo Alto instead. Industry analysts have voted Palo Alto the number one firewall for the last eight consecutive years, so if you want good protection, it's a no-brainer.

I have been working with this solution for 18 months.

The solution is reasonably stable. 

I do not think the product is scalable.

The set up was quite straightforward and we handled it in-house. It took a few hours to deploy the product. One a scale of one to five, one being very hard and five being very easy, I would rate the set up as a five.

It is an entry-level product, so the price is cheap.

The program requires maintenance, including updates, patching, and subscriptions. 

My advice to someone considering this project would be to look into Palo Alto instead. 

I would rate this solution as a one out of ten.

I use WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response to protect our clients from ransomware, spam, and other threats. We want to make sure all their applications are secure.

I have been using WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response for approximately two years.

WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is a reliable solution.

I have found WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response to be scalable.

We have approximately 30 people using this solution.

If we are not able to find answers to our questions about the solution from documents we can contact the support online through a portal on the application we have. They are able to help us when we have issues.

I was using a different solution previously to WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response.

The installation of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is straightforward. It did not take a lot of time, approximately 10 minutes.

There is a license required to use the solution and we pay annually. The price could be reduced because it is a bit expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response an eight out of ten.