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."The solution is good for load balancing."
"I like the automatic firmware updates. We use the Active Directory to authenticate VPN users."
"We've had no issues with the scalability or the stability of this solution"
"It prevents us from being hacked and delivers information about who and where the attack came from."
"In general, Meraki MX is easy to work with."
"When you try to create an IP or when you have an alert about when a website is banned, these features are helpful."
"I am happy with the technical support for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is that we didn't have any problems with Meraki MX."
"The solution is stable."
"SSL inspection is a valuable feature."
"Zscaler excels in security protection and the cloud is always up-to-date. It does not matter if you are a small or big organisation, you will receive the same security quality."
"The security is excellent."
"All internet access flows through the Zscaler proxy, regardless of whether people are in office or remote. I have greater control site access and I minimize the number of compromises that we experience to almost none."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is SWG traffic."
"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."
"The initial setup was straightforward. The biggest thing for us was to build our own policies. The deployment itself was only a few hours."
"Management can be improved in Meraki MX."
"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."
"When it comes to cost, that's a pain point."
"The product could incorporate tools like ThousandEyes into the system so we can see things directly."
"In general, the SD-WAN feature needs to be improved. The load sharing and load balancing of the traffic should be improved. I have had some problems with these features in the past."
"Meraki MX can come across as an expensive solution."
"MX can only be managed via a web interface, but I'm accustomed to using a CLI or a graphical interface. I would also like to see more reporting features. It doesn't provide enough information for me to know precisely about some clients."
"Meraki MX firewalls are great for small to medium-sized businesses, but other solutions are better for enterprise-sized companies."
"The solution is expensive. They recently revised the pricing and packaging. Some of our existing customers have been asking for alternate solutions for a lower price."
"I don't know whether it's Zscaler or not, however, sometimes I can't access my time management. I need to wait and try again a few hours later. Typically, if I let some time pass, I can access it again."
"One thing that they could improve is the ability to import rules from other platforms."
"It needs better integration with other applications. It takes a fair amount of regular activity to apply the by-passes because it is very strict in its restrictions and frequently you have to go in and open things up to allow the workforce to work."
"Zscaler should provide adjacent services, which would be complementary to their current offering that could to be more pragmatic for a customer. For example, if you take Akamai, you get multiple sets of services, all depending on the customer and the strategy and the complexity and the problems. In some areas, they are more varied in terms of coverage."
"The solution can be improved by advancing some of the newer technologies such as the DLP feature, and adding email security."
"The main issue with Zscaler Internet Access is proxy IP detection, which sometimes makes sites inaccessible."
"Zscaler Internet Access needs to integrate more ISPs. It is good to have more than three ISPs."
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, Sophos XG and SonicWall TZ, 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.