We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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."We've found the solution to be pretty stable."
"The payment function for applications is good."
"Customers want to load balance more than eight lines or six internet lines. FortiGate is the only solution that can accomplish this."
"There is an easy process for configuring it, and it is straightforward to implement the device from scratch."
"I like that you are able to manage FortiGate from the FortiManager to create a more centralized environment."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the APIs. They are the most widely known."
"The most valuable features are the enterprise modeling and the simple interface."
"The pricing is great and very reasonable."
"The technical support people from Meraki are brilliant."
"The dashboard is very intuitive and easy to understand."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"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 simplicity of configuration is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Real Auto VPN with load balancer without needing a public IP. It is simple and functional."
"It is a robust SD-WAN solution."
"What I like best about Meraki MX is that it's easy to deploy remotely. The product works. It has automatic updates. I also like that Meraki MX is a brilliant device. You turn it on, stick the key in there, activate it, and then you're done. Meraki MX does what my customers need at the end of the day, so I also like that."
"It has the ability to create Palo Alto VM-series using software."
"The most valuable feature is that you can control your traffic flowing out and coming it, allowing you to apply malware and threat protection, as well as vulnerability checks."
"It gives us the ease that we are secure. We have set up the proper things that help make our data safe."
"Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system simplifies our security posture based on our requirements. Instead of manually pulling logs, then generating them into readable formats, it gives us the console in a readable format to view."
"We now know a lot more detail about what our users are doing on the network."
"The solution enables organizations to enforce policies."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"We have reduced the number of configuration lines by 90%. We need fewer number of admins right now because of it."
"They should improve the interface to make it more user-friendly."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"They should make the rule sets more understandable for the end user. When you're trying to explain to somebody how a computer network is secured, sometimes it's difficult for an end user or customer to understand. If there was a way to make the terminology more accessible to the end user, the set up could be easier. They should translate the technical jargon to an easily relatable and understandable conversation for the end user, the customer, that would be brilliant. Particularly in an environment where the IT structure is audited regularly, there's always pressure from the auditor to up the standards and up the security and you get your USCERT's that come out and there's a warning about this and the customer will want to lock out so much and when you apply it they run into issue where they can't search the internet or print to their remote office. Of course they can't print to your remote office, they just locked it up. They should make the language more understandable for the customer. If there's a product out there that made the jargon understandable to John Q. Public, I would buy that."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"Fortigate's hardware capacities could be improved."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"The IPS, the Intrusion Prevention System, can be improved."
"I do not have the kind of feature I need for SSL decryption in Meraki MX. It would be great to see the SSL decryption feature in Meraki MX."
"We do not have account managers in our region for the solution. Some governments don't use the product since it is attached to the internet."
"As far as what needs to be improved — nothing really comes to mind. It does what we need it to do."
"It can be hard to get a hold of the solution’s technical support team."
"The product doesn't support route summarization and BGP dynamic routing protocol."
"What I would like to see in the next version is to have more interfaces for WAN links."
"The current lead time is longer for Meraki MX, and it needs to be improved."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
"Palo Alto is that it is really bad when it comes to technical support."
"There are various reports that come with the box or with the VMware, but you can only run them daily."
"Integrative capabilities with other solutions should be addressed."
"We feel that the setup was complex. So, we asked the tech team about the setup process. They explained how to deploy it in the right way, which made it very simple."
"The tool is very costly."
"The product's AIOps process needs improvement."
"The disadvantage with Palo Alto is that they don't have a cloud-based solution that includes a secure web gateway."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 59 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 53 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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 VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and Netgate pfSense, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Sophos UTM. See our Meraki MX vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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.
