We performed a comparison between McAfee StoneGate [EOL] and Meraki MX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The initial setup is straightforward."
"The SD-WAN function is very developed. It has SD-WAN functionality with security features in one device. We can manage from one single console SD-WAN and the security policy."
"The management console is pretty simple, so anyone who understands networking can initially deploy the solution."
"Its stability is the most valuable."
"The technical support is great."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a scalable solution."
"Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"It is quite easy to handle."
"We did not have issues with scalabiliy."
"It works well with a highly-active cluster."
"Managed centrally over the web: You can manages all your Meraki devices in a single account."
"Dual WAN connections are greatly simplified and point-to-point VPNs automatically connect regardless of what WAN connection is active."
"To me, the analytics feature is one of the most valuable in Meraki MX. I also find that it has good usability as it's cloud-based. Another valuable feature of Meraki MX is that it's simple to use and it's user-friendly."
"The security level of our organization has changed by using Meraki MX Firewalls. We didn't have the UTM before, but now we have sandboxing, tray scanning, attack preventions and monitorization. Our security level has improved."
"You can use your web browser to do the configuration which is easier than Cisco CLI transcripts."
"When you try to create an IP or when you have an alert about when a website is banned, these features are helpful."
"Since it has an integrated dashboard for all the products, customers can get complete network analytics regarding what the user is doing, monitoring, and observing."
"Simple to manage."
"We had some issues in the beginning while setting it up, but after doing the firmware update, it is working fine."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"I would like to have logs, monitoring, and reporting for a month without extra fees."
"The UI could be improved."
"They sometimes hide some features and if you want to enable them, you have to go in the CLI, enable the feature and configure it through the CLI. Customers, typically, like everything to be done by the GUI."
"The product does need better support in the cloud environment. It's not exactly cloud-native right now."
"One of the problems I was having was with user mapping, and it is an issue for which I have escalated tickets with Fortinet support."
"The reporting in Fortinet FortiGate could improve. Customers are having to purchase additional reporting components. When I have used the Sophos solution it is a complete solution, in Fortinet FortiGate you have to use additional tools to have the features needed."
"After some experience with the solution, we had to do some redesign, but generally, we were happy with the product."
"The current lead time is longer for Meraki MX, and it needs to 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 could have more reporting options and the ability to send alarms to the administrator."
"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."
"The product doesn't support route summarization and BGP dynamic routing protocol."
"The solution's pricing should be reduced."
"Meraki MX firewalls are great for small to medium-sized businesses, but other solutions are better for enterprise-sized companies."
"The client-side VPN is weak. The product could be improved with deployment templates."
Earn 20 points
McAfee StoneGate [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls while Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 57 reviews. McAfee StoneGate [EOL] is rated 7.0, while Meraki MX is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of McAfee StoneGate [EOL] writes "The HA cluster had issues during deployment, but the solution gives us better application control than with our previous solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". McAfee StoneGate [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and Netgate pfSense.
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.
