We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and Palo Alto Networks based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Both products received high marks from users. Meraki MX has a slight edge in this comparison. According to its reviewers, it is easier to deploy and more reasonably priced than Palo Alto Networks.
"It's super reliable. I don't think I've ever had a reliability issue with it."
"It's very good and very stable for businesses. It works very well."
"The solution is very easy to understand. It's not overly complex."
"We are using the FortiGate 100D series. VPN, firewall, anti-malware, OTM, and intrusion prevention are useful features."
"Fortinet FortiGate protects against internet-based threats, both internal and external. It is scalable, stable, easy to use, and easy to install."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"Layer-3 firewall and routing are the most valuable features."
"It is user friendly, and has all the features you need."
"Ease of management is the best thing about the solution."
"It is a robust SD-WAN solution."
"The solution is good for load balancing."
"Point-to-point VPNs can dynamically follow IP changes with no need for static IPs."
"Managed centrally over the web: You can manages all your Meraki devices in a single account."
"Deployment takes no more than one working day."
"The internet traffic shaping has been very valuable."
"The product is quite secure, easy to manage, and well-connected with other devices."
"I typically get involved with it when it comes to audit and compliance and having to gather evidence of those firewalls, routers, and rule sets. The evidence that I typically need is there."
"The payload is a very valuable feature."
"It's quite nice. It's very user-friendly, powerful, and there are barely any bugs."
"The interface is very nice. We generally like the UI the product offers."
"The most valuable features are the threat prevention and policy-based routing features."
"We have found the SSL decryption within this solution to be great; you can enable this feature and have the ability to see more of what is happening across your network."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"Application control, IPS, and sandboxing towards the cloud are the most valuable features. It is a very user-friendly product with a very easy-to-use interface."
"The cloud features can be improved."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"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."
"WAN load-balancing could be a lot better at detecting when a link is poor or inconsistent, and not just flat out dead."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"There are some complex administration tasks in their administration portal. That needs to be improved."
"The inability to scale the FortiAnalyzer to match our growth necessitates the purchase of new hardware."
"Fortinet needs more memory to save the log files. We need it to save the logs on the hardware and not in the cloud. I know this feature is available in FortiCloud, but if we need this log locally, it is not available."
"Could possibly use deeper configurations."
"From the improvement perspective, we need more monitoring capabilities. We want to have full-based access visibility, such as, what is happening when something is trying to reach and it is denying. We cannot see some parts of it. The integration of active directory with this product is not very fruitful. It has some bugs or lacks in the functionality of active directory integration. We are unable to identify where exactly and whether it has really applied our policy."
"They need to improve the link between Meraki and Active Directory."
"The security is not as strong as it could be"
"In the next release, because the security is pretty basic, I think they could include additional security features."
"The product could incorporate tools like ThousandEyes into the system so we can see things directly."
"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."
"I would like to see more integration."
"The machine learning in Palo Alto NG Firewalls for securing networks against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly is good, in general. But there have been some cases where we get false positives and Palo Alto has denied traffic when there have been new updates and signature releases. Valid traffic gets blocked. We have had some bad experiences with this. If there were an ability, before it denies traffic, to get some kind of notification that some traffic is going to be blocked, that would be good."
"There is room for improvement in the area of customer service."
"Palo Alto is like Microsoft. It has varied features, but it's too technical. A lot of the features could be simplified. The procedure, process, features, and usability could be more simple."
"It's not so easy to scale out your security capabilities."
"Its stability can be better. Their technical response from the support side can also be better."
"The built-in machine learning features provide some automation, but I think there should be an option for manual review because nothing replaces the human eye."
"The SD-WAN product is fairly new. They could probably improve that in terms of customizing it and making the configuration a little bit easier."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 59 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 164 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6. 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 Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". Meraki MX is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ, Netgate pfSense and SonicWall NSa, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Meraki MX vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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.