We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and Zscaler Internet Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Unified Threat Management (UTM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."You can use your web browser to do the configuration which is easier than Cisco CLI transcripts."
"It prevents us from being hacked and delivers information about who and where the attack came from."
"Managed centrally over the web: You can manages all your Meraki devices in a single account."
"Both the scalability and the scalability are great with Meraki MX."
"It's flexible, easy to configure, and easy to manage."
"The simplicity of configuration is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"I am happy with the technical support for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten."
"A strong, reliable solution for small companies with little or no dedicated IT department."
"The URL filtering has been the most valuable feature."
"The solution’s customer service is good."
"We enjoy all of the proxy capabilities and the capability to integrate into the SIEM/SOC solution."
"I like the granularity of the control of all the traffic, including SSL inspection. I also like the fact that the user interface is intuitive. The latencies with Zscaler are minimal compared to those of any other competitor. Other competitors do not really have the global scale that Zscaler has and cannot promise low latencies."
"The initial setup was straightforward. The biggest thing for us was to build our own policies. The deployment itself was only a few hours."
"Zscaler Internet Access protects using data loss prevention. If you have a CASB exposing your cloud out into the network, then Zscaler Internet Access will go ahead and control that unknown cloud application in the CASB, protecting it. There is also data detection with exact data match. This improves the data coming into your cloud so you are protecting it."
"In terms of management and visibility, there is a single panel where you can configure the policies for your entire organisation worldwide."
"Zscaler Internet Access has helped us reduce the time that we spend managing security policies by about four hours a week. We can use this time to focus on other things, especially the IT team."
"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."
"The IPS, the Intrusion Prevention System, can be improved."
"Meraki tech support staff have a lot more visibility into your network than you do, which is frustrating at times. I understand the approach is to keep the dashboard easier to understand. This will frustrate more advanced users at times."
"Could possibly use deeper configurations."
"It can be hard to get a hold of the solution’s technical support team."
"We had minor issues with Meraki MX. We had a couple of RMAs, so that could be an area for improvement, but in terms of how the RMAs went, the turnaround time and getting those back into redeployment were quick. Another area for improvement in Meraki MX is that when you're scaling for multiple locations, you need to use the same model, but the model you'd need is only available for a short time. The specific model you require could be out of stock, or Meraki isn't making that model anymore, so Meraki should improve that."
"The configuration options for firewall and IPS have limitations."
"They're very complacent and I find the rule set to be a little arcane."
"I would like to see the ability to choose a pool of IPs for my company, set up rules based on them, and know that those IPs are not used by other companies."
"What could be improved in Zscaler Internet Access is its price. It could be cheaper."
"The reporting functionality could be a bit easier to use. There is a reporting function, but it's quite hard to do any good reporting, from a user-management perspective. For example, if a department manager wants to know how his department is using the web, there is a way to get the data, but it's quite cumbersome to get it and show it well. And that's true for comparing between departments."
"Zscaler needs to add client-to-client communication. It's always client-to-server communication. The cloud and branch connectors could be improved because we're still dependent on traditional firewalls. They should eliminate this. They should also provide WAN devices should to compete with the SD-WAN solutions also."
"There are a few features that are not compatible with the Azure cloud."
"The OS capabilities and WSL support could be improved."
"In terms of user experience, it could be better."
"The solution can be improved by advancing some of the newer technologies such as the DLP feature, and adding email security."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 59 reviews while Zscaler Internet Access is ranked 2nd in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 46 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Zscaler Internet Access is rated 8.2. 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 Zscaler Internet Access writes "Provides integrated CASB and file sandboxing but could be less expensive ". Meraki MX is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall and Sophos XG, whereas Zscaler Internet Access is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and FortiSASE . See our Meraki MX vs. Zscaler Internet Access report.
We monitor all Unified Threat Management (UTM) 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.