The solution is extremely scalable. The company I currently consult has 500 users but it can go up to the thousands. 

The solution is not scalable. I rate the scalability a four out of ten. The hardware has certain limitations in memory. If we need a higher memory, we must change the box. If we need LTE as a backup element within the box and have already deployed one flavor, we cannot use it. We have to replace the box. The hardware is the limitation.

It is very scalable.

For active security, we have about 15 to 30 security tools, like XDRs and firewalls. There are a lot of things that we need secured. We have physical doors, email, networking equipment, phones, and Windows devices, like physical machines. If you just go down the list of hosts, those take different types of security, like hosts for VMs. So, if you layer that, then you have layers of security where these are your base layer. Then, on top of that, you start layering on authentication protocols, like your domain controllers, authentication, LDAP, or wherever you want to have your directory live. We have a few places where our directory can live and switch between. There are different security setups depending on what we want to fallback to or actively use. 

Everyone accessing Meraki is either IT personnel or serving an IT personnel goal. There are also some salespeople who go over inventory, billing, and procurement on the sales side. Anyone in security and working on the network in general can access Meraki. Anywhere in-between the IT director and the IT to our line can access Meraki to do something in it. There are different thresholds in which those people do different things. Tier 1 will just go look and make sure something is connected. Tier 3 will go make sure that things are set up correctly and change things if needed. Engineering will look at an issue if it gets escalated beyond that. That is your normal, typical IT stuff.

The solution is scalable. It depends on the number of people we cater to. There are different boxes of MX. So far, we have been buying based on our needs. If there is a major need, then we may need MX100. If the setup is small, we can choose MX84 or MX64. In our organization, more than 500 people use the product in different locations. We need two to three people for administration.

The scalability is generally pretty good as long as we size it properly. Once we hit a threshold on memory or throughput on a device, we'll have to upgrade it physically. It's a hit or miss. We have to make sure we size it right. If a client is going to stay the same size for quite a while, then it's pretty much all set.

Previously, in about 100 branches, Meraki was installed. Right now, we are at the stage where we are installing it in 150 branches. In short, we have added 50 more branches, and it's working smoothly.

I don't have the user count in hand, but about 150 branches are using the solution.

I do have plans to increase the usage of the solution.

Meraki MX is scalable. I have the Meraki MX set up from Oklahoma all through several of the big cities in Tennessee and northern Alabama. We use it, and we run it for a particular company for voice-over IP phones. It works well. I don't have any issues with them. We can set up virtual networks, separating data and voice traffic.

Meraki MX firewalls are great for small to medium-sized businesses, but other solutions are better for enterprise-sized companies.

Meraki MX is a scalable solution. Around 14 users are using the solution in our organization.

The scalability based on the number of devices is pretty good. However, scalability based on the bandwidth is quite limited. About 35 customers are using the solution.

Meraki MX is an easily scalable solution. I generally take care of medium and enterprise customers. I have worked on every segment. Generally, mid-size and enterprise-level customers with multiple branches opt for Meraki MX.

I haven't tried the tool's scalability features, but as far as I understood from the tech sheet I saw related to the tool, I rate the solution's scalability a seven out of ten.

Around 300 people in the organization use the solution.

In terms of scalability, the process of scaling Meraki MX is straightforward.

MX is scalable. We sometimes have 300 to 400 users connected at the same time. It's a highly stable product. 

The solution is highly scalable, there are different models available depending on how many users will be behind the firewall. That can be a few users or thousands. 

We have deployed in locations that have one site with two or three users, and we have deployed in other places that have ten locations with ten firewalls and behind each firewall might be 50 people, so up to 500 people or more. Then we create site-to-site VPNs between each of the locations.

I put in Meraki for every customer in need of a firewall who does not have this product. I have some customers with Cisco ASA contracts lasting another one or two years, so when they expire, I will put in a Meraki.

The solution is scalable and you can add as much as you want. 

Meraki has a lot of different products, and it is scalable with Meraki products, but its scalability with another brand is not good.

We have two administrators who are currently using this solution.

The platform is suitable for small to enterprise businesses.

I didn't reach the need to use a relevant scalability test in my company because I am using the tool for the first time for just two users and four guest users. Before I can talk about scalability, I should use the tool's scalability features.

I prefer Meraki MX for personal use. In professional terms, I am working with Cisco on a regional basis in Europe.

Considering the needs of medium-class clients, scalability proves to be highly advantageous. I would rate it nine out of ten.

We have not encountered any problems with scalability. We started with 1 Mx-64, migrated to MX-84, then straight up to 2x MX-100 in a high availability configuration. We started out with 100 devices and now we are 430 devices with dual Fiber WAN connections and it runs very smoothly. We currently just integrated a MS-425-32 port 10GB network switch and it works very well.

When it comes to the scalability, would give it a seven out of ten. I didn't initially buy it or install it myself, but but we are using still it to this day.

We have two administrators and 600 end users for Meraki MX.

The solution is scalable.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability. High bandwidth will cost something. You might be better off using multiple streams with multiple providers.

The scalability is very good. We use it for plans that are electrified and on bigger plans for our domain. We have all of our plans and software licenses that match. We have deployed with this company responsibly. 

Currently, we are 400 people. We may need two more devices for 800 users. We decided to go bigger because of our proposed acquisition of many companies in the next couple of years.

During the Intel CPU clock signal component issue in early 2017, Meraki’s MX84 product line was impacted. Once Meraki started getting replacement CPUs they shipped a replacement MX84 to swap my production unit. I was very impressed to learn how easy a hardware swap works with the Meraki dashboard. It was very simple to add the replacement unit. It began to function as a warm spare so I could then remove the old serial numbered device. A few minutes later the replacement unit downloaded the production configuration and we were up and running on the replacement hardware. I also on a separate project upgraded to a larger MX and it was just as simple.

The scalability of Meraki is fine. It's for me for IT, and then another person also uses it. We are two people. If something happens that we don't know how to handle, we ask for the help of the company's tech support team.

Dataways is the integrator that we bought it from to increase scalability. The limit is 48 users with shares of the Meraki for 48 ports.

In the future, we are going to increase security and put in another Meraki.

It is scalable. We have a lot of customers for this solution. In terms of the number of users, there are about 200,000 users.

You need to change the device based on information that Cisco provides. If you overload the Meraki throughput, it is time to change the device.

No.

If you are overloading the firewall, you need to buy the next model as there is no upgrade path.

It's a scalable solution.

I have not used the scalable features at all. We have around ten users using this solution at the moment. We don't have plans to increase the usage, all business is exhausted. 

It doesn't require staff to maintain it. It's up and running. Tops it requires is one staff checking on it once a month. 

We don't have big clients that need to scale a lot. Our biggest clients have five firewalls. At most, we are talking about 200 users all on the same side under the same firewall. We don't do much scaling.

Since we've only used it for one year, there's still a question about scalability.

We've had no issues with the scalability or the stability of this solution.

It's pretty scalable. I have, worldwide, over a million users.

Meraki MX is both scalable and stable.

I'm using it. It's very good. One person is required for the administration only.

Meraki MX is both scalable and stable.

We have had no issues scaling.

It is very scalable. We have all kinds of customers.

Both the scalability and the scalability are great with Meraki MX.