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.

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.

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.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall for security purposes in order to keep our organization safe.

In general, the entire security solution is great, from end to end.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

The solution works quite well. I can't think of any features that are lacking. I don't know where it could be improved.

Some people complain that the solution tends to have a steep learning curve. It could be because most people have basic familiarity with Cisco or other similar products and maybe have never worked closely with Juniper products. I don't find that it's a problem, however, I have heard this mentioned as an issue for some people.

We've been using the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches and doesn't seem to crash at all. Its performance is great. You can rely on it.

The solution can scale if you need it to. That's not a problem.

We do have plans to increase the usage of the product in the future.

We have technical experts who have helped us in the past. They were quite supportive. They were both responsive and knowledgable and we've been satisfied with eh level of service provided.

Before we started using Juniper, we used Huawei Firewall and its related services. We switched as we found that Juniper offered a much better service. From our perspective, everything about Juniper is better. Huawei is lacking in a few areas.

The solution isn't too complex to set up. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment, from beginning to end, takes about six months.

We had about 20 experts on the deployment project.

We used a solution provider to assist us with the implementation.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Juniper.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

We'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution an eight.

We use the solution to block unwanted sites on our internal platform.

We like the solution’s protocol and its dashboard system.

The solution should consider improving its licensing policies. It would be better if we could make a one-time payment for the hardware.

Our organization has been using the solution for about three and a half years.

The solution is stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It is not a scalable solution since it depends on the hardware. In our organization, 500 people use the solution. We have no plans to increase the number of users.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It took about three to four days to deploy the solution. We hired third-party consultants to deploy the solution the first time.

The deployment model depends on our operations. We needed only one engineer to deploy the solution.

We have purchased a one-year license for the solution. The solution could have been cheaper.

I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the solution a nine on ten.