We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and WatchGuard Firebox based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, both solutions received similar ratings in all categories.
"The main benefit is the grouping of our security monitoring."
"The reporting you receive out of this appliance is excellent. You will not need an external management system."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"It has improved our organization with control data."
"The most valuable features of the solution are SD-WAN, filtering testing applications, web filtering, and the new VPN."
"I have found Fortinet FortiGate to be scalable."
"This is an easy solution to deploy."
"This solution has helped our organization by having strong functions and a reliable firewall."
"It prevents us from being hacked and delivers information about who and where the attack came from."
"I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard."
"Very easy to use and navigate."
"Deployment takes no more than one working day."
"In a week, we can make new policy and view what all our users did."
"It is a robust SD-WAN solution."
"We switched to Meraki because it lets you see what's happening in your LAN and WAN in a graphic and web environment."
"The internet traffic shaping has been very valuable."
"It's hard to pick one feature over another. But if I had to pick one, the UTM would be the most valuable because of the notification. I get notified via email if there is any type of threat detection or alert, telling me something is wrong."
"The reports are detailed."
"Efficient to setup, run, and maintain. Saving man hours and cost in the process."
"The ease of use is most valuable. You can quickly train someone who hasn't seen a firewall in life. You can get people up to speed, and in a few months, they are able to manage this product very easily. It is a very user-friendly, scalable, and stable product. Its price is also spot-on."
"The solution has a useful traffic monitor."
"The most valuable are the VPN and proxy features."
"Their centralized console simplifies management for organizations with multiple Fireboxes."
"I like intrusion detection the most."
"Fortinet FortiGate can be integrated with different platforms. They have integrations in place, but I can't say they're 100%."
"The logging details need to be improved."
"There are just some services that aren't available. For example, the Ethernet or point-to-point protocols. They could add these services to their product offering - especially services for ISPs."
"The visibility of the network can be better. The GUI can be improved for better visibility of the network flow. Other solutions have better GUI in terms of network visibility."
"It needs to improve its ISP load balancing."
"There is one big configuration file with no separations for the unique VDOMs. Maybe they could separate individual VDOM configuration files with the root VDOM configuration file referencing the individual VDOM config files."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"I don't like that anything more than very basic reporting is not included."
"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."
"Direct logging is something that can be introduced. In the absence of cloud management, the possibility of local configurations and on-premise logins becomes restricted. This limitation stands as a primary concern. When it comes to resolving issues, the inability to access login options hampers troubleshooting efforts. The stability is noteworthy; but when compared to alternative products, its stability is comparatively lower. Additionally, certain limitations are observed in terms of remote control. Price-wise, the solution stands out for its competitive and cost-effective nature compared to other alternatives. Operationally, it is user-friendly and requires minimal effort from administrators, making configuration hassle-free."
"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."
"Meraki has some hidden features and information that is only privy to their engineers. If that information became available to us, then it would improve our ease of management, and we would be able to make certain adjustments instead of having to go to them."
"The whole Cisco Meraki range requires easier access for cameras. For a security center, it would be helpful to have easier access to cameras through the portal. Its licensing cost could also be better."
"Could possibly use deeper configurations."
"They're very complacent and I find the rule set to be a little arcane."
"The software in it could be a bit more friendly for an amateur user. I look at it and don't understand what half the stuff is. Looking at the interface, it is all mumbo-jumbo to me. It's not a simple interface. You have to be an IT guy to understand it. It is not for your average person to use, then walk away from it. It is much more entailed."
"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."
"The reporting is a little on the weak side. I would like to see a better reporting set and easier drill-down options."
"There are a couple of things I wished that it would do, but I can't think of those off the top of my head."
"There is a slight learning curve."
"There should be better integration and a way to configure multiple vendors into the same data center in order to offer more flexibility."
"I believe there is a need for additional measures to connect mobile devices securely to the Firebox router."
"There's always room for improvement, especially if the threats are getting more sophisticated and the IT department cannot sufficiently meet this kind of sophistication with their own knowledge and experience. Knowing that this solution can get up to the level of addressing a lot of these threats is something that everybody wishes for. If we look at the dark web and the lawful web, they are two opposites, and if these two good and bad collide in the world of the internet, you want the best possible product—especially if you cannot get to that point of knowledge. I am just an individual and end user, with limited knowledge of usage. That's why I say there's always room for improvement, from their side and also from mine, because by knowing exactly what they can achieve and the knowledge that they can get on an everyday basis, and the portion that is understandable to me, it's an improvement for them as well."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 57 reviews while WatchGuard Firebox is ranked 3rd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 78 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while WatchGuard Firebox 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 WatchGuard Firebox writes "Offers a streamlined deployment, intuitive interface and robust security features". Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and Check Point NGFW, whereas WatchGuard Firebox is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, OPNsense, SonicWall TZ and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Meraki MX vs. WatchGuard Firebox report.
See our list of best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
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.
