We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and Sangfor NGAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most important features with FortiGate are the web filter and application controls. We can control our internet usage and use the web filter for application purposes."
"FortiGate firewalls are user-friendly, and I like the security profiling features."
"Fortinet FortiGate is easy to use."
"A strong point of FortiGate is the graphical interface is complete and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of FortiGate is FortiView which provides proactive monitoring."
"The stability of the solution is excellent, as it is with other Fortinet products."
"We've found the solution to be pretty stable."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"Dual WAN connections are greatly simplified and point-to-point VPNs automatically connect regardless of what WAN connection is active."
"I like the automatic firmware updates. We use the Active Directory to authenticate VPN users."
"Traffic Shaping: The device lets you decide how you want to use your internet services. Due to the fact that Meraki can accept dual WAN, you can decide the way you balance the data traffic."
"The solution is good for load balancing."
"A strong, reliable solution for small companies with little or no dedicated IT department."
"Easy to administer and saves time when you have many smaller locations that you have to manage."
"You can use your web browser to do the configuration which is easier than Cisco CLI transcripts."
"I am happy with the technical support for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten."
"I think Sangfor NGAF is more valuable than Cisco products because of its simplicity and ease of management. If I compare it with Palo Alto and Cisco, both are quite complex products. And if I compare it with FortiGate firewalls from Fortinet, I have also used all these products. Fortinet and Sangfor NGAF are similar products because the applications behind the application and policy layers are almost identical."
"So far, the performance and reliability of the product have supported our company's critical network traffic."
"In our hospital, Sangfor NGAF works well for us in terms of ensuring confidentiality and availability, which are crucial in the healthcare industry."
"Sangfor is a good solution that provides a WAF and firewall solution. Most other vendors, like Sophos and Fortinet and Cisco, only provide one solution. That's a valuable feature of Sangfor."
"We've found the technical support to be helpful."
"Sangfor has the best capabilities for securing connections, securing web browsers, securing servers, and general threat protection."
"We can utilize our own network rather than paying for a private one."
"It seems to be a durable, stable product."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"The solution can have more features in a single box that can be multi-applied to integrate everything."
"Usually, we sell the bundle with the UTM or threat management piece with IPS, IDS. Other providers, such as Palo Alto, are ahead in terms of safe functionality. So, for me, delivering truly safe service is probably something that still needs to be improved."
"The solution is very expensive."
"In some cases, its initial setup could be hard for customers."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"This product could be improved with Active directory integration and better handling in IPsec and GRE Tunnels."
"Pricing is an area where the solution lacks since it is an expensive tool."
"Direct logging is something that can be introduced. In the absence of cloud management, the possibility of local configurations and on-premise logins becomes restricted. This limitation stands as a primary concern. When it comes to resolving issues, the inability to access login options hampers troubleshooting efforts. The stability is noteworthy; but when compared to alternative products, its stability is comparatively lower. Additionally, certain limitations are observed in terms of remote control. Price-wise, the solution stands out for its competitive and cost-effective nature compared to other alternatives. Operationally, it is user-friendly and requires minimal effort from administrators, making configuration hassle-free."
"It can be hard to get a hold of the solution’s technical support team."
"Right now, you can postpone the update but eventually, if you don't do the update, it will install the updates automatically for you and that's something that is not working for me."
"The only stability issue is in Content Filtering. Sometimes we need to report these types of issues to Cisco support."
"It is very expensive."
"Meraki has some hidden features and information that is only privy to their engineers. If that information became available to us, then it would improve our ease of management, and we would be able to make certain adjustments instead of having to go to them."
"It would be nice to get detailed logging information without third-party software."
"They need to improve their research team and they need to study their data to analyze it and build the product."
"An area of improvement for Sangfor NGAF could be in the field of reporting and logging."
"The support offered by the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required. The knowledge levels and response time of the support team need improvement."
"Our experience with its customer support was quite challenging."
"I believe that IAM and NGFW need to merge into a single box, instead of there being two separate box solutions."
"The product must provide more IPS features."
"An area for improvement would be the number of ports defined on the box. In the next release, I would like them to develop their provisioning stage of enrolling end devices."
"The interface and user experience are horrible."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 59 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 31 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and Netgate pfSense, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Netgate pfSense and Check Point NGFW. See our Meraki MX vs. Sangfor NGAF report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.