Juniper vSRX Reviews

We use the solution as a site-to-site VPN gateway.

The solution's most valuable feature is the logical terminal interface. It helps us with monitoring VPNs. We get alerts and other notifications when in case of system downtime using it.

The solution's GUI needs improvement. Whenever we do some modifications, the systems get restarted. Thus, I have to use the command line interface.

I have been using Juniper vSRX version 13 as a customer for the last five years.

The solution is stable.

We have more than 20 to 30 site-to-site VPNs established using the solution.

Compared with the solution, Cisco ASA needs proper SNMP and MIB monitoring in case of IPSec VPN tunnel downtime.

The solution's initial setup process is easy.

The solution is inexpensive.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it an eight out of ten. It is a very inexpensive box and has good features as well.

It's where we face some of our IPsec tunnels.

It's basic functionality is probably the most valuable feature.

Juniper has some really good ideas, but I think they have missed the boat with regard to execution.

The GUI really needs a lot of work, and it has got worse with successive version updates. There are some things that are just easier to look at in the GUI, and they've removed some features that were very helpful.

Even though the features are still available in the CLI, sometimes it's just easier to look at the rules in a hierarchical fashion in the GUI.

The hardware needs some serious work as well. In the four years we've had Juniper vSRX, we've had four RMAs. Each of the three physical devices that we have has been replaced at least once.

A better methodology of looking at how a proposed rule would act on the network would be good to have. For example, Cisco ASA had a tool where you could write a rule or a policy, and it would tell you whether it stopped specific traffic.

I've used it for the last four years.

My impressions of this solution's stability is not very favorable. We haven't had any problems with actual stability in the last couple of years, but it has lost its mind a couple of times and required rebooting.

The technical support for this solution is fair. I've had a lot worse, and I've had better, so it's run of the mill.

We were using Cisco ASA before Juniper vSRX.

The reason that we didn't go with Cisco is that their products were behind the times. Other products had more up-to-date technology.

We're a small organization, and the initial setup was pretty straightforward. I do the maintenance of the solution.

We hired an outside vendor to help with initial deployment.

On a qualitative level, Juniper vSRX is taking care of what we need it to. So far, we haven't had an attack, but we did have a breach.

The ongoing licensing cost seems to be pretty standard. There are no additional costs.

I recommend looking elsewhere. I'm not particularly enamored with Juniper vSRX. I've had a lot of problems with it. We're looking to replace Juniper with either Aruba or FortiGate based on usability and affordability.

Overall, I would rate this solution at four on a scale from one to ten.

We did a project for the government. We deployed the Juniper Firewall on their premises. The solution is used for the security purpose of client infrastructure security. There are three types of zones: zone-to-zone-based policy, IPS intrusion, and other policies implemented there.

The graphical unit is slow. Also, Juniper vendor shipping of UPM devices, support, Bandwidth shift, and other activities are very complex.

I have been using Juniper vSRX for six months.

Compared to the Palo Alto firewall and Fortinet firewall, Juniper has low stability. After deploying, I didn't face any challenges.

The solution is scalable. There's one client requirement to make an external firewall. There is no HA. We are focusing more on the user. We are working with Fortinet, Juniper, and Cisco teams to provide our clients with the best solutions. If the client is interested in Juniper, we implement that.

The initial setup is straightforward. For deployment, we are using some networking devices for the routing. I deployed it in the firewall inline mode and created some zones for security purposes.

People in Bangladesh, including the government and small businesses, have pricing issues.

Many customers are using Juniper routers and switches, which has prompted another team to work with Office 365. I am only working on the Juniper firewall part. The technical side is almost the same, and the function is similar with respect to other competitors. Juniper deployment is not very complex, but Cisco deployment is very complex.

I recommend having a price and other comparison with Palo Alto and others.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The software is good. It's similar to when we used LAN and Cisco routers and firewalls in the past. We were able to scale. Juniper is better than Cisco for management.

It is pretty complex to manage and could be easier.

We have been using this solution for about nine years, and it is deployed on-premises. We are using version SRX 500.

The hardware is stable and more stable than Sophos.

It is a scalable solution. We have about 500 users using this solution in our company.

It is easy to install.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten, and I would recommend it to other people.

Our primary use case is for firewall and network security

It does everything that we need it to do.

• Easy to maintain.
• Easy to use.
• Easy to set up.

It is easy for me to go in and update settings, make changes, or add/remove rules or security. 

Also, it works. That is the biggest thing.

The user interface could always be better. They could make it simpler and more intuitive. While it is pretty good now, they could always make improvements.

We don't put that much stress on it, but it is very stable. I don't think we have ever had an issue with it crashing or going down.

Our college is small, so we have a smaller environment. However, it appears like it would scale easily. There are other larger colleges who use Juniper using the same system and setup that we do with thousands of faculty and staff instead of the hundreds that we have.

I have not contacted technical support.

It is not that costly.

We also evaluated Cisco, but we had a good experience with Juniper in the past. Our rep with them would come out and talk to us about things routinely. Thus, we already had a good relationship with them.

It works for us and has worked for other colleges and universities.

We use just the on-premise version of the product. We are not on AWS yet. I'm looking forward to integrating this solution into AWS soon.

One of Juniper vSRX's most valuable features is its integration with safety applications. It keeps the software secure from developers without relying on third-party solutions.

The biggest downside of Juniper vSRX is its pricing, which may be too high for smaller organizations. While it's a decent solution, the cost may limit its accessibility to smaller customers.

I have been working with the product for five to six years. 

The solution's stability is good. It responds very quickly in crisis situations, which might be partly because I know the team there and how to get the information I need.

The tool's scalability is good. 

I've seen really fast response times with Juniper vSRX. When there's a problem, it modifies the firmware quickly to respond to the threat. With Cisco, it can take months to make changes because their architecture is more complicated. Juniper vSRX and Fortinet are straightforward. 

Positive

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

The tool's most valuable features are routing features and service quality. 

The tool's basic license does not cover everything. It needs to improve visibility and availability. 

I have been working with the product for two to three years. 

The tool is very stable. 

Juniper vSRX's scalability is good. 

We chose Juniper vSRX for its price. 

I rate the tool's deployment a four out of ten. You need one month to complete the deployment for 50 sites. 

Juniper vSRX is worth its money. 

I rate the tool's pricing a five out of ten. 

We evaluated Cisco before choosing Juniper vSRX. 

I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

Mine control is not an easy area to control in Juniper. There are also too many steps for configuration, like the IP address policy. There are too many types of licenses, which can be confusing. Simple licenses should be built in.

Processing is too slow between Juniper and Cisco. Palo Alto is faster. The database is not as complete as Cisco or Palo Alto.

I've been using this solution for around 11 years.

I also use Cisco and Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution 6 out of 10.