We performed a comparison between SonicWall NSa and SonicWall TZ based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: SonicWall TZ has an edge in this comparison. Unlike SonicWall NSa, its reviewers mention seeing an ROI.
"Our project needs to link two sides through the internet. One of these was in Cairo and the other in another city. We used FortiGate as the integrating solution between the two locations, i.e. the Fortinet 30E & 100E."
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"Overall security features and performance routing is good."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"FortiGate SD-WAN facilitated a smooth transition for our customers between their two internet service providers, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity without any downtime."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"FortiGate Secure SD-WAN includes best-of-breed next-generation firewall (NGFW) security, SD-WAN, advanced routing, and WAN optimization capabilities, delivering a security-driven networking WAN edge transformation in a unified offering."
"The ability to set up remote systems is the most valuable feature."
"SonicWall provides endpoint security with advanced protection. Moreover, SonicWall includes access points and additional features."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the firewalling, which is very good and the GUI which is very intuitive. It is easy to use, and provides great security."
"It allows us to block applications, i.e., websites by application type category. It is far more capable than content filtering alone."
"Sometimes I have some queries, and the SonicWall support team resolves my queries."
"SD-WAN is a good feature."
"The most valuable feature is the sandbox."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is its ability to work like any other firewall."
"Content filtering reduces the load on the available bandwidth and restricts employees from using distracting websites on the job, which leads to more productive hours."
"We like the unified threat management for defense-in-depth. We can terminate our site-to-site and remote access VPNs with it."
"Ease of management and the VPN integration."
"Offers the right amount of control without being incredibly convoluted and frustrating."
"We use the content filter quite a lot because it's an office setting. During working hours, we like to censor the sites users can visit so it increases productivity. Therefore, the content filter has been good for us."
"It does what it says it is going to do."
"With the main firewall routing there, we can do connectivity point-to-point. On the low bandwidth we can connect in all the branches with my corporate office."
"I've found the technical support to be helpful."
"The stability is very nice."
"There can be more security in hybrid implementations. When a customer has a hybrid environment where some parts are in the cloud, we need a consistent security solution for such scenarios."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having more storage in the hardware for log data."
"FortiGate support could do some improvements on their IPv6 configuration. Right now it's still in the very early stage for utilizing in an enterprise level network environment."
"It would be ideal if they had some sort of GUI interface for troubleshooting and diagnostics."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard and UI, as well as to the reporting."
"The product does need better support in the cloud environment. It's not exactly cloud-native right now."
"There could be more integration between the logging and analytical platforms to make it more seamless and integrated."
"The content ID needs to be improved."
"The product must enable integration with endpoint protection tools."
"The reporting feature could be better because most of the companies want to have the analytics included, which is something that you have to buy separately."
"They should consider upgrading the capabilities within the GUI."
"Initially, it may be difficult for some people to learn and become acquainted with it."
"The content filter needs to be improved."
"An area for improvement would be SonicWall NSa's integration with antiviruses."
"The cost could be lower. There could also be more flexibility for smaller companies."
"There is still room for improvement, and it's not advisable even if the organization has grown."
"GUI interface could be improved."
"In terms of what needs to be improved, I would say better load balancing and data filtering."
"Full monitoring obviously needs to be improved. We need full monitoring covered under the security licensing."
"User interface could be improved."
"I can't get the support that I need from SonicWall."
"The market seems to be going to a cloud-supported, new generation of firewall products. I think that's probably going to be important to us, the next time around."
"The solution's antivirus checking could be improved so that we can have a deeper inspection of the packets."
SonicWall NSa is ranked 19th in Firewalls with 80 reviews while SonicWall TZ is ranked 12th in Firewalls with 78 reviews. SonicWall NSa is rated 7.8, while SonicWall TZ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SonicWall NSa writes "Great performance and security with reasonable pricing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall TZ writes "Has efficient user access control feature and good technical support services ". SonicWall NSa is most compared with Meraki MX, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas SonicWall TZ is most compared with Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, WatchGuard Firebox and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our SonicWall NSa vs. SonicWall TZ report.
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.
Basically, the main difference is that the TZ series is intended for a Branch office since it has fewer ports and the speed is around 1 GB.
The NSA series has more processor power and more port where you can create subnets and zones (like DMZ). Also, it has ports with 10 Gb and a processor to support the demand.
I have read that an approximate number of users in the highest TZ series (TZ 670) is around 150 to 200 but that is just an estimate.
Hope this helps. You can get more details in SonicWall datasheets where you will find the speed, throughput and more technical specifications to select the one that fits your requirements.
In simple words,
TZ is for small businesses (less than 100, maximum 150 users).
TZ has fewer ports.
NSA is for medium and large enterprises: > 150 Users,
NSA has many ports to support large networks