We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus is #14 ranked solution in top Anti-Malware Tools. IT Central Station users give WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus an average rating of 8 out of 10. WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus is most commonly compared to ESET Endpoint Antivirus:WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus vs ESET Endpoint Antivirus.
What is WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus?

Keeping your network free of malware is more challenging than ever before as an increasing number of new and ever-changing threats are emerging each day. Ensure your network and devices remain free of malware with WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus. It uses advanced, multi-layered threat detection engines to identify and block malware at the network gateway. Using industry-leading, high-performance scanning of traffic on all major protocols, WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus provides real-time protection against known viruses, trojans, worms, spyware, and rogueware.

Buyer's Guide

Download the Anti-Malware Tools Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021

WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus Customers
Star Cargo
WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus Video

WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
RM
Owner / CEO at Midwest Technology Specialists LLC.
Real User
Top 20
Very stable and effective on non-encrypted traffic, but doesn't offer endpoint protection

Pros and Cons

  • "It is the most effective on non-encrypted traffic and it is able to determine some threats through deep packet inspection."
  • "The solution isn't what I would consider feature-rich."

What is most valuable?

The solution is very powerful.

It is the most effective on non-encrypted traffic and it is able to determine some threats through deep packet inspection. 

There is a basic deep packet inspection within the antivirus that is able to be run against proxy filtering and certain policies. It's pretty standard in the industry. 

What needs improvement?

The solution isn't what I would consider feature-rich.

Due to the fact that the high volume of traffic that is currently encrypted, I find that the antivirus is less effective every year. That's not just WatchGuard, however. It's the biggest area in need of improvement right now is as a whole in the industry. It has the same weaknesses other firewalls have, and that's its inability to dissect encrypted traffic. It is capable of doing it, however, it requires some specialty configuration that often interferes with Azure, Amazon cloud services, or things of that nature.

It would be useful if we could be able to get a report as to why the solution is doing one action but stopping another. You can configure it as part of the firewall to decrypt that traffic, effectively making it a middle man, however, in doing so, you often disrupt Microsoft Office 365 and Amazon Web Services. The capability is there. It is just not considered a recommended best practice.

While the ability to determine threats in non-encrypted traffic is a good part of a solution, it is not an adequate standalone. It does not have an endpoint component.

The feature I'm most interested in is additional endpoint protection, however, they recently purchased Panda. That would go in line with the EDR product. As a managed service provider, I'm always looking to simplify and clean my stack, so I can provide my customers with the best possible service with the least complexity. It's nice to know that they're actively working towards that already. 

Also, I should note that most of the features I want are currently already in beta.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have 18 years of experience with the WatchGuard brand, and 13 years directly with their threat detection and response products. I've put in more than 30 pieces of WatchGuard hardware, firewalls, access points, etc., in the last 60 days.

I've been using WatchGuard's Gateway AntiVirus specifically for 15 years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution has remained very stable. It has never resulted in a service-related ticket being required or anything along those lines. Users can rely on it as it doesn't crash and there aren't bugs or glitches that affect its functionality.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is very scalable as part of a whole solution. One of the best features is that it's capable of having file exceptions based on the MD5 hash.

As a consultant, I have many of the systems out in production and they are in environments ranging from five to 10 users, up to several hundred.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support has been amazing. We're very satisfied with their level of support.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very, very easy. It was not complex at all.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Discussing licensing is tricky. It is not available as a standalone purchase. It is part of a whole, so I can't divide out the costs in an effective way.

What other advice do I have?

We're a service provider and have been for a number of years. I'm a consultant.

The solution is part of the firewall and the UTM. It's never really handled as a separate entity, though it is licensed. It's part of their unified threat bundle.

I've used almost all of the current GUI interfaces. The antivirus has changed the backend engine a couple of times over the years. The current revision, I believe, is Bitdefender driven, but I'm not exactly 100% sure.

I'd advise other organizations, when setting up the solution, to configure all proxies and policies prior to doing the subscription service setup. 

If the policies are pre-configured and your proxies are set up prior to activating the security antivirus or the Gateway AntiVirus, 90% of the configuration is done for you. You only find yourself manually doing it if you are building rules after the fact.

As an antivirus and standalone product, I would rate the solution seven out of ten. The main reason is, as a gateway appliance, it does not have the capability to perform the same function as an endpoint antivirus. It is not a substitute for endpoint antivirus.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
TX
IT at a manufacturing company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Moderately priced and likely works better outside of China, but lacks great performance

Pros and Cons

  • "The pricing of the solution is okay. It's not the most expensive option."
  • "It doesn't offer the best protection and it's incompatible with a lot of China's websites. It makes a lot of mistakes when it is detecting items as it's not recognizing items correctly."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution to protect our hardware.

What is most valuable?

The pricing of the solution is okay. It's not the most expensive option.

This product may do well outside of the Chinese market.

What needs improvement?

This isn't very popular in China. It doesn't offer the best protection and it's incompatible with a lot of China's websites. It makes a lot of mistakes when it is detecting items as it's not recognizing items correctly.

It has the functional WebBlocker and the server is not local. Sometimes the performance is bad we'll get pop-ups saying "the server is not available". I'm not sure if users outside of China have such an issue, or if it's just due to the fact that we have a unique web experience in the country. The solution just doesn't fit well here.  

The performance could be a bit better.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been working with the solution for almost ten years. We have three generations of WatchGuard under our belt.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We've had issues with unstable network connections. It's hard to say if this was caused by a bug or an internal issue. It seems to depend on the network environment if it is stable or not. There just seems to be some limitations.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability seems to have some limitations. We've had issues with performance, and that might affect scalability. I'm not sure.

How are customer service and technical support?

IN China, the company doesn't really have any presence and so there isn't really technical support we can connect with. There is only an agent that is present, and they haven't been too helpful in the past.

How was the initial setup?

I don't recall how the initial setup was. I can't recall if it was difficult or straightforward.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing is likely similar to Cisco's Firewall. It's not the cheapest option. It has a moderate price tag.

What other advice do I have?

I'm not sure if I would recommend the product. My experiences are based on what we've seen in terms of response to our network environment. Maybe other companies have a good international network and maybe they would have not this issue. It's hard to say. In any case, we've had issues.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. Maybe they shouldn't be in the Chinese market.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Product Categories
Anti-Malware Tools
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Anti-Malware Tools Report and find out what your peers are saying about WatchGuard, ESET, Broadcom, and more!