WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

We really don't use the firewall too much, we use it more as a VPN. We've got several different networks that we're joining through WatchGuard.

It has made firewall configuration really simple. It doesn't take years of training or certificates to go in and manage it. That's a big deal. We set up our firewall, operating as a VPN. It's bringing several networks together and it made that process easy.

In terms of my job, it's taken so little of my attention. I have worked with Cisco firewalls and they were complex. WatchGuard is easily understood and managed. It's easy to watch traffic go through the network, to look for ports that are closed or open, and to see what's actually moving through the network and what's not. It has made it easy to understand network traffic.

The learning curve is very small in comparison to the Cisco firewall. Within two hours, I was managing WatchGuard, whereas with Cisco it might have taken a month to accomplish that same level of proficiency. As far as the control of traffic is concerned, I spend one or two hours a week on WatchGuard, as compared to about eight hours with the Cisco firewall. It has freed up my time to do other things.

What I like most is the analytical side. It's pretty simple to understand when you want to do any diagnostics on your network. If you want to go in and see what packages are having trouble getting through, what's being held, stalled, etc., it's very easy to use in that way.

In terms of the usability overall, it's pretty simple but, at the same time, it's pretty full-featured in terms of what it can do. We only use part of it, only because that's where we're at right now. But for a small network, for a small organization, especially, it's a complete solution to your firewall needs. It's relatively simple for me to get into and to work with when I need to; if I need to set up an ARP table or to create different reports. For a smaller network with lesser-trained IT people - if they're lucky, they've got one IT guy trying to do it all - it's an excellent size. Whether you've got a few machines or several hundred, it's pretty simple.

One of the things that is always valuable is workshops. It's really hard to get away and do webinars, but what I would like is a selection of webinars. I see WatchGuard comes forward with a webinar where they're going to introduce this or that. I'd like to see a lot more of those and a lot shorter.

On lynda.com I can just point to a video to show me something I need to know how to do; for example, how to merge contacts in Outlook. But it is a ten-minute video. I would like to see more of that kind of learning. I'm sure WatchGuard has got all these videos, has got the webinars and the training sessions. But when I need to know something, I need to be able to get to it quickly. I want an indexed learning system very close to what lynda.com might use. I also want to be able to put questions forward either in a "frequently-asked-questions" forum or by sending them up to the support team for quick reply. 

I want to be able to go to a portal and put in my problem and have WatchGuard bounce back to me with, "Well, this is how we can do it," or "We don't have a solution for that." And then I can go to other vendors to look for a solution.

The more targeted learning system I can have, the better. If I have to schedule a webinar that might take 30 minutes, there's a good chance I'll miss it. I sign up for webinars and it happens that I'm not available because I've got other fires going. The learning has to be there almost at my whim: "I've got a fire burning, I've got to figure out how to put it out. I need a ten-minute video to show me." Those learning sessions have to be available and easily found, when I need them. I have so little control over my schedule on a daily basis, and I'm sure I'm like many others.

One other shortcoming is that there is no backup for it. We really haven't figured out how we might solve that problem. We may want to put a duplicate in. With Cisco, it's not uncommon to have dual firewalls with something our size. That way, if one were to fail, we've always got the other. With WatchGuard, we just have the one box. If that were to fail, we'd probably be really hurting.

I haven't had to look at it in nine months. It just works pretty painlessly. It's very stable. It's kind of invisible.

We haven't hit a limit. We have the wireless running through it, a camera system running through it. There are 50 workstations running through it, as well as servers. I don't have any problems with it whatsoever. 

Tech support is everything for any product. WatchGuard's technical support is up there at eight or nine out of ten. That's really what you're looking for in a product; more than the product itself, it's that support. If it's not there, you can just frustrate yourself to death on solutions. WatchGuard is support is easily available and know what they are talking about.

We were looking for a solution. The engineer that I had knew of WatchGuard and thought it was probably a good idea, and that was the whole strategy. He had worked with it before and he was the lead engineer when we implemented it. He was right about WatchGuard, it is a good product.

We were using Ciscos. They were aged and out of date. They were pretty well done. Our options were to get new Ciscos and get them configured. Of course the deployment and hardware were expensive. And the maintenance or the management, in the long run, was much more expensive.

With the WatchGuard, the initial hardware was less expensive. And the implementation, because it didn't require as much training, was much less expensive. And the management is much less. When I say "much less," I'm talking about 25 percent of the cost of what the similar Cisco would be.

I remember it being somewhat complicated. There were some complications we ran into; it didn't seem to be quite as easy as what we'd hoped. We did have really good support though, from WatchGuard, on the other end, assisting with the setup. That made all the difference in the world. That made it pretty painless. That was the key. 

When you're configuring a new piece of hardware, there's always some little switch that you miss or that just doesn't make sense. When you've got that support on the other end they know exactly where to go... WatchGuard had that.

At first, we were running into some issues configuring it to meet our needs. It was throwing us for a loop for a while. The issue was setting up the correct rules. But from the time we got that done, it just sits there and runs. We've had it 15 months and I haven't seen it in nine months. We got it configured and set up, and it just operates. 

We had it running on the first day, literally within hours. We had a lot of configuration to be done over the next six months, twists here and there. But as far as actually being able to set it up and have a firewall in place, that was done within two or three hours.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. It was pretty much, "Get the license and you're good to go for the year."

We looked at Cisco in addition to WatchGuard. We didn't look at anything else.

I wouldn't hesitate to implement this solution. Particularly if you're down to an IT staff of one, this is a really good solution. If you're that small and your IT staff is very limited, then you're probably lacking the onsite expertise to move to a more expensive solution anyway. I would strongly recommend it.

We've got three people who sign in to WatchGuard, me and two others. Beyond that, everybody else is just an end-user. I'm the only full-time IT person we have on staff. We do have a vendor that we use for a lot of our engineering solutions and design. They spend about 12 hours a week on our network.

As for increasing our usage of it, I don't know what all its capabilities are. I deal with problems all the time and I have to come up with solutions for them. I don't foresee any expanded use of WatchGuard. However, it may be that it can solve some of my problems much more simply than some of the other solutions I'm thinking about. But I don't really know how it could at this point, so I'm not seeing us using more of it than we are now.

I would give WatchGuard a ten out of ten. It's simple, easily managed, and it has good tech support compared to other products out there. Because it is a full-functioning firewall, it does everything with full support. You're not buying a cheaper quality of firewall at all. It's full quality, fully functional and has good support.

The WatchGuard Firebox is our version of a firewall. It has several use cases. 

WatchGuard Firebox's two-factor authentication feature is particularly useful and provides an added layer of protection. It's been a reliable and stable solution for us.

When working with WatchGuard, specifically in configuring Panda Security on the portal for the first time, it was challenging for me. Creating the partner center and setting up the account in Panda Security was not straightforward. Although working with the Panda Security part itself is easy, I faced difficulties in creating the partner center. So, maybe this could be an area of improvement. 

Another area of improvement is the license. The price could be cheaper. 

We currently use WatchGuard Firebox T20 model.

There are around 26 users using this solution. In terms of user capacity, the T20 model can support up to 20 users.

WatchGuard Firebox is easy to use and set up. I work with the solution every day, so I'm quite familiar with it. In my experience, setting up WatchGuard has been straightforward. It didn't require much effort. 

Although I have spoken to others who mentioned that implementing it for the first time can be challenging, I personally found it easy. I had no issues with the setup.

Whether it was deployed in the cloud or locally, it took a month. I maintain the solution and provide technical support. 

I recall when I bought the first Firebox; someone advised me to start by seeking assistance from the WatchGuard support center. I found all the necessary information to implement the solution. That's why I believe it was relatively easy for me to implement it the first time. However, I am aware that many people find it challenging to implement WatchGuard on their first attempt.

Currently, we use an internal lead to sell WatchGuard to our clients. So, the price varies. However, it's worth mentioning that our internal use of WatchGuard includes Panda Security as well.

We do pay for a license. It's a three-year license. It is an expensive solution. The price could be lower.

WatchGuard is not a widely known solution in my country. People here tend to use CheckPoint, Fortinet, and Palo Alto more. However, I believe WatchGuard is a good solution that more people should be aware of and consider. We are actively working to promote it in Angola. In fact, there might be more companies in our country that could benefit from using the WatchGuard solution.

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

We use this for our network, mainly for the configuration of rules, such as VPN connections, remote access connections, and application web filtering. I'm a security engineer and we are customers of WatchGuard.

This is a very flexible product without licensing limitations. They offer good classes through Gartner. 

Although this solution is better than others on the market, I'd like to see improvement in the visibility of network traffic. It feels that the web interface is missing some parts, particularly access and configuration. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

We've never had to use the technical support. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Our primary use cases for WatchGuard Firebox are routing and VPN, including the integrated firewall. We do not use the SSO system or any other router features.

WatchGuard Firebox was able to help our organization during the pandemic as we were obligated to work from home. We were working remotely, so the VPN feature of WatchGuard Firebox allowed remote work.

The most valuable feature of WatchGuard Firebox is the VPN. It's easy to connect to the VPN.

The user interface for WatchGuard Firebox has room for improvement. Right now, it's a bit complex to work with and could be easier. I like Fortigate better because its user interface is nicer and easier to work with than WatchGuard Firebox, so improving the user interface would be great.

I've used WatchGuard Firebox for two to three years and still use it at work.

WatchGuard Firebox is a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

In terms of scalability, WatchGuard Firebox is an eight out of ten.

I didn't have to call the WatchGuard Firebox technical support team, but the support on the website is a six out of ten.

Neutral

The company used Fortinet before using WatchGuard Firebox, though I don't have information on which Fortinet product and why the company switched to WatchGuard Firebox.

I wasn't involved in the deployment of WatchGuard Firebox because I wasn't there when the company chose the product. I just learned to love it.

WatchGuard Firebox was great for remote working, but I have no information on its ROI.

I have no information on WatchGuard Firebox costs.

My company uses WatchGuard Firebox. There's a Watchguard router for the internet and three sites on WatchGuard.

I'm using WatchGuard Firebox M440.

The product is deployed on-site.

I can recommend WatchGuard Firebox to anyone looking into implementing it, but I cannot advise on how to implement the product for your network or environment.

My rating for WatchGuard Firebox is eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is a primary firewall.

The features I found most valuable are probably the built-in VPN functionality and the scalability because they can both be centrally managed. It is very easy to scale. It is also very granular, so you can be as restrictive or as non-restrictive as you like. This means you can be very precise with it.

The area where I think this product can be improved is the user interface and the reporting. It can be quite difficult to find the correct logs and to actually find out what is going on. The digging can be time-consuming.

I have been using this solution for a year now.

I would rate the stability of this solution an eight out of 10, with one being unstable and 10 being very stable.

I would rate the scalability of this solution a 10, on a scale of one to 10, with one being not scalable at all and 10 being very scalable.

We currently have about 200 users.

From my experience with their customer service team, I would say that they seem quite knowledgeable and fairly quick to respond.

Previously, we used FortiGate. FortiGate is a much more mature product. I feel like FortiGate is a lot easier to work with. Firebox, you're able to achieve the same outcomes, but it can be a lot more complicated to do so.

The initial setup can be somewhat complex. I would rate it a six out of 10, with one being not complicated at all and 10 being very complex.

Our deployment was done through a third party.

I would rate their pricing plan a four, which means it's definitely on the cheaper scale.

I would recommend this product, but you need to make sure that you've got the technical capability to work with it because it can be quite complicated. Overall, I would rate this solution a seven out of 10, with one being poor and 10 being excellent.

We are WatchGuard partners, and we also use it on our own. We are using it for general firewall purposes and vulnerability management. We are also using some of the additional security stacks such as intrusion detection and so on.

We are one version behind the latest version. We have it on-prem at the moment, but some of our customers have private cloud solutions.

I like intrusion detection the most.

I'm pretty happy with it, but vulnerability management could improve a little bit in comparison to other parts, such as Cisco and so on.

There could also be better reporting. For example, there should be more out-of-the-box management reports. These two improvements would be nice.

I have been using this solution for around 10 to 15 years.

It's stable.

It's scalable, but I haven't compared it with others.

There are five people who are using it from an administrative perspective, but everyone is using WatchGuard because of the VPN.

I haven't interacted with them myself, but my colleagues state that their support line is good.

Its setup is of medium complexity. It's not super easy. Everything is in its right place, but it's not as complicated as other vendors. It's in the middle.

The deployment duration varies. Depending on your needs, it could take a few hours.

It's in the medium range. Its price is pretty good considering the functions and add-ons that are used.

I would advise having a proper look at the features because there are a lot of different versions, scales, and limits on different Fireboxes. You have to decide in advance which one is good for you in terms of performance, future needs, and so on. You shouldn't have too many changes in your landscape. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

It's mainly an internet gateway that is used for internet gateway protection and remote access.

There is room for improvement in the threat protection, data packet inspection, and performance of the solution. Generally, it's just a lower-end product. It does the job but doesn't do it very well.

Compared to Palo Alto, for example, some of the main differences are zero-day protection, performance, deep packet inspection, and App-ID. I'm not really a fan of WatchGuard. We only use it with one client and we're trying to get them to get rid of it. I prefer to use Palo Alto instead. Industry analysts have voted Palo Alto the number one firewall for the last eight consecutive years, so if you want good protection, it's a no-brainer.

I have been working with this solution for 18 months.

The solution is reasonably stable. 

I do not think the product is scalable.

The set up was quite straightforward and we handled it in-house. It took a few hours to deploy the product. One a scale of one to five, one being very hard and five being very easy, I would rate the set up as a five.

It is an entry-level product, so the price is cheap.

The program requires maintenance, including updates, patching, and subscriptions. 

My advice to someone considering this project would be to look into Palo Alto instead. 

I would rate this solution as a one out of ten.

We use it to protect our web stations and service. 

We established a branch office VPN to our branch office. Since last month, we have added Mobile VPN tunnels to our headquarter.

We have the ability to use it for connecting to our terminal services, then to the Fireboxes, so we can create user-based policies, which are very important at this time. We can control who has access to management servers and machines that are not for general use by users.

We use a normal packet server. We are also using a proxy service and IPS, so all features are possible with these devices. We have seen many attacks from specific IP addresses that were all blocked. Most times, these were IPS traffic port scans. All this traffic is normally blocked from our side.

The solution simplifies my business. Normally, for administration, we are using Watchguard System Manager on Windows since it's easy to create new policies. In a short amount of time, you can create new policies based on new requirements. For example, in the last few months, many requirements changed due to the coronavirus, adding the use of new services, like Office 365, and eLearning tools, like Zoom.

With Firebox, the monitoring is good. On the Dimension servers, I can see where the IP addresses send and receive a lot of the traffic so I can analyze it. I am also able to see where attacks are coming from. It's good to see visually what policies are most in use and which traffic was blocked. Its easy to visualize policies. The dimension server shows which policy is used and the data flow through the firebox.

For our requirements, WatchGuard has very good features available in its software.

It is good for administrating devices. It is reliable and easy to use. Most of the time, the results are what I expected.

The performance of the device is good. The time to load web pages has not been slowed down too much. With additional security features, like APT and IPS, WatchGuard Fireboxes need a moment to check the traffic.

For reporting, we use the Dimension server from WatchGuard where we have many options to analyze traffic. It has a good look and feel on all websites that WatchGuard creates. All pages have the same system, so it's easy to use because the interface is uniform throughout the entire solution.

We are using some of the cloud visibility features. What we use on that cloud is DNSWatch, which checks the DNS records for that site. It is a good feature that stops attacks before they come into the network. For most of our clients, we also run DNSWatchGO, which is for external users, and does a good job with threat detection and response. It is a tool that works with a special client on our workstations. 

Sometimes I would like to copy a rule set from one box to another box in a direct way. This is a feature that is not present at the moment in WatchGuard.

I'm missing a tool by default, where you can find unused policies. This is possible when a) you adminstrate the firebox with dimension, or b) you connect it to Watchguard's cloud.

We have been using this solution for a long time (for more than a decade).

The stability is very good. I normally only do a reboot of a Firebox when I upgrade the boxes with new software, so they run sometimes two or three months without a reboot.

It is scalable to many environments. With all our locations, we found this solution works.

For the moment, we have around 80 users total at all our locations. The traffic at our headquarters per day is 300 gigabytes.

Our number of Fireboxes has been constant over the last few years, as we don't have new locations. We are a sports organization, so we are not expanding.

WatchGuard's support is very good. Over the years, there have been only one or two tickets that were not solved.

When you start as a new customer, you should start with a bit of support from your dealer so you have some training on the boxes and how to manage them.

Before using WatchGuard, we had a Linux server with iptables. We switched to Firebox because it is much easier to administrate. It has real boxes with a graphical interface, instead of command line administration.

It is relatively easy to set up a new box. In my experience, you have a basic rule set. When you start with a new box, you can quickly make it work, but you always need to specify the services that you need on the boxes. You need some time to create the right policies and services on the box. This is the process for all Fireboxes that you buy.

When you have a small branch office with a small number of policies, you can make them active in production in one or two hours. With complex requirements at your headquarters where you have several networks with servers, web servers, and mail servers which can be accessed from the outside, the configuration will need more time because the number of policies is much higher.

The implenetation was done by the vendor. For us the solution was ok. At this point my knowledge about firewall was not on the level I have today.

It saves me three or four a month worth of time because it stops malware. I don't need spend time removing malware from the client.

I think the larger firewall packages are much better because a normal firewall is not enough for these times. You need IPS, APT, and all the security features of a firewall that you can buy.

We evaluated some other solutions.

Administration of Fireboxes is only a small part of my job. I have been the network administrator since 1997. While the solution does make less work, I still need a little time to monitor all solutions. 

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).