When we first tested the serial interface on our model, it did not work.

It should be easier to escalate support tickets.

There are a lot of features that customers do not know about and I think that better documentation would help when it comes to learning how to use the product.

Technical support could be improved by adding local engineers.

Juniper support is very good. But more than the technical support, their documentation is awesome. You can just Google a solution right now by stating your problem. You get into the juniper.net and there is wonderful documentation. As a technical person, I have never seen any technical documentation that is as good. I would say it is awesome. Any person who has an interest to learn, who has the interest to scale his capability with the product, just has to go to the Juniper site and they will get all the information on every one of their products. I think that it is written well enough for a non-technical person to become technical.  

They have different levels of training available. They make it very easy and available for anybody to explore the solution. There are knowledgeable people available in the technical community. It is a very good solution overall.  

Juniper supports their products very well.

The most valuable feature is the support.

Our operational team handles the solution more than I do. I personally haven't seen any features that are missing per se.

The solution isn't very granular or detailed. However, we're just using the basics anyway.

The product could have a quicker response when it comes to technical support getting back when we have questions.

I have reached out to Juniper tech support a couple of times. I recall the experience being good. I got the answers I needed. I've used technical support from Sophos and Cisco in the past, and in comparison, I find Juniper to be quite good. I'd say we are satisfied with the level of support provided. 

The reliability needs to be improved. We purchased three devices and all three have been replaced under RMA. We've had other problems where they have needed to be rebooted.

A couple of times I've run into the problems where they have to integrate with other systems. The Juniper support really doesn't have a clue about other systems. They know Juniper and if everything is Juniper then it's great. However, we have Windows RADIUS Servers and I need Juniper-specific settings for them. Unfortunately, they're having a real hard time telling me what those should be, and they keep referring back to it being Microsoft, which they don't support. When they say that I need to speak with Microsoft, I remind them that these are things that are defined in the Juniper configurations that I need to set up. They seem to forget that not everybody is exclusively Juniper.

It was very difficult to deal with and required a lot of support, and the UI is very poor. 

I didn't like this product at all.

We faced many issues with the power supply causing many outages with this SRX box.

We experienced outage issues when load-balancing between two availability architectures, which had an effect on the availability.

Once we started to deal with this solution, it was very difficult to troubleshoot. It was not straightforward at all when comparing to Cisco. 

We always had support tickets. More than 50 tickets per month exceeded the SLA by more than two weeks.

Better support is needed.

In the next release, this solution needs to be stable, offer better support, better pricing, and less expensive to migrate.

The technical support is a lot better because when we log a case, they respond.

The solution works very well in small offices.

The CLI works perfectly.

Technical support has been very helpful overall.

They offer very good administration capabilities.

They have technical support over the phone as well as the online ticketing system and that has worked out pretty well. They have been able to solve problems for us, although I do not know all of the details because we direct our clients to them. When our clients get in touch with customer support to resolve their issues, they share the information with us later.

Since COVID, the tech support is not much good. You have to wait a long time. For example, if you open up a case, you don't know how much time it will be before they come and if the person opening the ticket is even experienced.

I think technical support is good.

We have premium support from the company and we provide support to our customers. 

We had to use the support in a couple of instances. When we have used the support, it was good. They were responsive and able to resolve our issues. There is also some community support online that I have found to be helpful.

Support is good. We speak to them quite often.

It is a complete security bundle. The cloud-based Sky Advanced Threat Prevention feature is very valuable.

I am 100% satisfied with the performance of the Juniper firewall. It has a very good throughput. It works very fine. We use our firewall as a site-to-site VPN or Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN). In both cases, it has a very good and optimum performance.

Their service support is very good in India. I get really good support from the Juniper team.

I have never needed to contact Juniper technical support.

The dashboard is very helpful. It's extremely useful in terms of putting the necessary policies in place.

I handle the operation part. I'm just putting policies, et cetera, on Juniper. For tasks such as those, it is very easy and it is a comfortable, straightforward process.

The solution has proven to be quite stable.

Technical support has been quite helpful.

Its stability isn't bad. In two years of supporting this device, I had only one issue. I had an incident when one of the SRXs in a cluster couldn't learn ARP, and the request didn't move between cluster units. I had to fix this manually, which wasn't really cool because I had to get up in the night because of this incident.

Technical support is brilliant, but I guess you have to pay for it.

We have worked with the solution for a while and therefore have become quite versed in it. We're comfortable with its tech and have a good understanding of how best to use it. 

The initial setup was easy.

In terms of usability, there are good forums on offer and they've got a lot of technical documentation for everything. 

Technical support is good. They quickly respond, and they even have local help here. They can actually give you an answer very quickly.

The solution has been stable over the years.

The solution can scale very well.

It's quite a user-friendly solution and I find it to be easy to navigate. 

The initial setup is very easy.

The stability has been quite good. 

Technical support has been quite helpful. 

The pricing has become very reasonable and we find them to be competitive.

The support could be somewhat improved with Juniper.

The reason that we picked Juniper SRX is for the scalability, the fit for purpose, the tools that are available, the ongoing support, and the ability to monitor, but particularly for the virtual routers in our data centers so that we can quickly upscale them when needed, when we need more throughput.

The solution is mostly stable. 

We get technical support via the reseller, and they are very helpful. 

You can scale the solution. 

The solution works well for larger organizations. 

I would like to have a better web UI for administration. Juniper could simplify the web UI and make it more compatible with mobile devices. In particular, I'm thinking about our remote offices, where we don't have dedicated IT personnel. Let's say someone from the office staff was working via smartphone. If the web UI were more compatible with mobile devices, the administration could manage IT support from a team that is not in their location. It would make it simpler for small companies to deploy these devices. I also think the documentation is lacking.

We connected with tech support seven or eight months ago. We got good support and a good response.

We are a financial institution and we use Juniper SRX routers to support our credit team, as well as our branch network. I am part of the IT department.

Juniper SRX lacks scalability. Juniper uses a switch car with different switches. We have some difficulties managing this kind of equipment and implementing some features, like Mac lock and Mac limiting solutions. It's difficult to get good support about this from Juniper. We have about 10,000 users across all routers and switches. I can say the same for FortiGate. We're currently using it extensively for all traffic, and we plan to expand usage.  

We had a situation where our network was down and the telecom providers at Cisco support helped us to resolve those issues. The downtime was brought down to a minimum.

We are getting the best support from Cisco and we are not getting the best support from Palo Alto.

All the features are very valuable. 

Among them is the integration for remote users, with AnyConnect, to the infrastructure. All the security through that is wonderful and it's very easy. You connect and you are inside your company network via VPN. Everything is encrypted and it's a very good solution. This is a wonderful feature. You need to make sure your machine has the profile requested by the company. That means having the patches updated. Optionally, you should have the antivirus updated, but you can decide whatever you would like in order to enable acceptance of the end-device in the enterprise network. That can be done with AnyConnect for remote/satellite users, or with ISE for local users.

The intrusion prevention system, the intrusion detection, is perfect. But you can also integrate Cisco with an IPS solution from another vendor, and just use the ASA with AnyConnect and as a firewall. You can choose from among many other vendors' products that the ASA will integrate with. Now, with Cisco SecureX, it's much easier than before. Cisco used to be completely blocked from other vendors but with SecureX they are open to other vendors. That was a massive improvement that Cisco probably should have made 10 years ago or seven years ago. They only released SecureX three or four months ago. 

Cisco ASA also provides application control. You can block or prevent people from going to certain applications or certain content. But the ASA only acts as a "bodyguard." It doesn't provide full visibility of the network. For that, there are other solutions from Cisco, such as ISE, although that is more for identity. Stealthwatch or TrustSec is what you need for visibility. They are both for monitoring and providing full visibility of the network, and they integrate with ASA.

Also, all of Cisco's security products are supported with Talos. Talos is in the background, handling all the improvements, all the updates. If something happens in Australia, for example, Talos will be aware of it and it will update the worldwide Talos network for all Cisco products. Within two minutes or three minutes, worldwide, Cisco products will be aware of that threat. Talos belongs to Cisco. It's like a Cisco research center.

Technical support is a very strong point in Cisco's favor. I would rate it very highly. The support is excellent.

When it comes to Cisco, the price of everything is higher.

Cisco firewalls are expensive, but we get support from Cisco, and that support is very active. When I hit an issue when I was configuring an FTD, as soon as I raised a ticket the guy called me and supported me. Cisco is very proactive.

I had the same kind of issue when I was configuring a FortiGate, but those guys took two or three days to call me. I fixed the issue before they even called me.

Given that we have been upgrading with Cisco firewalls, I would say that our company has seen a return on investment with Cisco. We would have changed to a different product if we were not happy.

The response time from the tech and the support we get from our partner is quite good. We have never struggled with anything along those lines, even hardware RMAs. Cisco is always there to support its customers.

I haven't worked with Cisco's technical support. We haven't had real issues with these firewalls.

We are satisfied with technical support. They are good.

We have contacted technical support for some issues outside our technical expertise, mostly for updating the license.

We have a team that handles our issues.

We've been in contact with technical support on multiple occasions and each time we've had a good experience. We're satisfied with their level of support. They are fairly good.

Cisco's support is great. 

For experienced users, they are pretty much able do anything they want in the interface with few restrictions.

The command-line interface is really useful for us. We script basic installations and modifications through the command-line, which is considered sort of old school, and yet it allows us to fully document the changes that we're making due to the fact that we can save the exact script that was applied and say, "Here are the changes that we made." 

We can have less experienced people do initial takes on an install. They can edit a template, and we can have a more experienced person review the template, and then apply it, and we don't have to worry about whether anyone inexperienced went into certain corners of the interface and made changes or whatever.

Everything is all documented in the file or in the command line script that gets uploaded to the device. It gives us great visibility.

The security the solution offers is very good. Security-wise, it's the top in the world.

The product has excellent technical support.

The user interface is easy to navigate.

Everything is user friendly.

The tech support is good. The documentation is verbose almost to the point of being confusing if you don't know what it is you're looking for.

It's only confusing if you have somebody who is not familiar with it. They give you every option in great detail, so you can spend time searching through a manual that you might not otherwise. Here's an example: take Sophos or SonicWall — let's say the manual for SonicWall is 25 to 30 pages; that same Cisco documentation is going to be three times that size or more.

It's not that it needs to be simplified, the people using it need to be knowledgeable. It is not a novice box, we'll put it that way.

Cisco is powerful when it comes to detecting intrusions. It's better than, for example, Fortinet.

Cisco has multiple products - not just firewalls. The integration between other items provides a powerful end-to-end solution. It's nice and easy. There are one management system and visibility into all of the features. Using the same product is more powerful than using multiple systems. Cisco is known by most customers due to the fact that at least they have switches. However, when clients say "we need an end-to-end option" Cisco is there.

The stability is very good.

Technical support services are excellent.

The configuration support is very good. You can find a lot of configuration samples and troubleshooting tips on the internet, which is very good.

The technical support is definitely very good.

Cisco's technical support has always been excellent. They have great support.

When we need assistance from technical support, we typically deal with the team in China. They've been very good. Whenever I have a problem, they can resolve it. They are knowledgeable and responsive. We're satisfied with the level of support we get.

The technical support is with our solution provider. I would say that it's average, rather than very good.

We get our support from the resellers, not from Cisco. 

Technical support is fine, we have no issues.

Firewalls are about blocking. ASA is for blocking, but it does not have the intelligence like Fortinet to detect attacks. If I could use ASA to detect attacks, maybe we could buy another service from Cisco although it's very expensive. I would choose Fortinet, but my clients like ASA support. I prefer Fortinet because Fortinet has a UTM and it's a good firewall.

We don't have Cisco support because these models are excellent.

Technical support is perfect.

I manage it myself. If I can't, then I get somebody else. I don't have any support from Cisco.

Cisco technical support is good.

I've never dealt with technical support yet. I can't speak to their level or response or their knowledge of the product.

We have not contacted technical support because we have not had any issues.

Technical support is good and we haven't had any problems with documentation that is provided.

The most important feature is the VPN connection.

My clients also use the antimalware features and the scan is very good. It also supports packet inspection and IPS.

Cisco ASA is easy to configure.

The integration with the security features is something that I like.

In general, we support more public fiscal entities. Most of them are quite sizeable at 5,000-6,000 employees. We use it mostly for remote access.

I have been auditing their partners in Bulgaria and I am in contact with them on a regular basis. I have not had any real issues with my equipment but overall, I think that the support is perfect.

Technical support could be improved, they take a long time to respond. 

I'm satisfied with their technical support.

While I've dealt with Cisco technical support in the past on other solutions, I have not contacted them in regards to this specific product.

That said, my past experience with Cisco technical support has been very positive and I found them to be very helpful in general. I just can't speak to this specific product.

The support has been great and responsive. Most of their engineers are very professional and knowledgeable.

Technical support provides us with good service.

The software itself is very simple.

The solution is easy to operate. It's not overly complex.

The command line is the same as it is on the Cisco iOS router.

The technical support is very helpful and responsive.

We use third-party technical support that's offered and we're quite satisfied with the level of attention we receive.

Support is not a requirement. In the whole industry, there are a lot of Cisco-trained personnel that we can actually seek advice from. There's not much leveraging on the Cisco support so far.

If our clients need support, we provide it. Support is not cheap. Sometimes a device will go out of warranty, but the customers are not willing to renew the support contract. Of course, there are a lot of cheaper alternatives. In Singapore, a lot of companies outsource support. Most of the time we go through third-party companies instead of Cisco directly.

We faced some issues, but I don't deal with these issues. My colleague interacts with them, and it seems it is not that easy. Cisco is a large company, and sometimes, it is not easy to get quick and very efficient support.

Cisco technical support is one of the best around. They have the most advanced and most experienced level of tech support I've been in contact with. Whether it is a hardware or software issue, the tech team can support you and help. They are very helpful and knowledgeable. We are quite satisfied with the level of support on offer. 

We have had no issues with technical support.

Netting is one of the best features. We can modify it in different ways. Site-to-site VPN is also an awesome feature of Cisco ASA.

The biggest advantage of Cisco products is technical support. They provide the best technical support.

I have interacted with them many times. I have been on a call with their technical support continuously for 48 hours. They were very prompt. In terms of technical support and documentation for switching, firewall, and routing solutions, no one can match Cisco.

The solution can allow and block traffic over the VLANs.Some of the unauthorized actions and malicious traffic can also be blocked effectively, as we are following PCI DSS compliance. We are a card industry. We are using cards as a payment method, and therefore we need to follow the compliance over the PCI DSS. That's why we chose one of the best products. ASA Firewall is very secure.

It's always easy to integrate Cisco with the same company products. If you are using other CIsco products, there's always easy integration.

Cisco is one of the most popular brands, and therefore the documentation is easily available over the internet.

They are best-in-class.

The remote VPN feature is one of the best features we've found. 

We like that there is two-factor authentication on offer.  We can integrate a Google authenticator with Cisco ASA so that whenever a person is logging on to any network device, they need to enter the password as well as the security code that is integrated by Google. It's a nice added security feature.

Cisco ASA provides us with very good application visibility and control. The Cisco CLI command line is one of the easiest we found on the market due to the fact that the GUI and the user interface are very familiar. If you're a beginner, you can easily access it. There's no complicated UI.

When compared to other products available, the cost is pretty similar. There's no big gap when you compare Cisco pricing to other products. 

There are multiple features in a single appliance, which is quite beneficial to us.

Support that is on offer 24/7. Whenever we face some technical issue, we can reach out to them easily.

We have not had any security breaches. 

They provide a helpful feature that allows us to configure email. 

We are getting a lot from the appliance in real-time.

The technical support has been excellent. When there have been any issues, they've always been there for us.

The support of this solution is very good.

I don't directly deal with technical support. Typically, that's something that others on the team deal with. We have our own team within the company that, if I run into issues, I would reach out to first. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I've never had a chance to contact them. 

Its licensing cost and payment model can be improved. Cisco doesn't provide training and certification for engineers without payments. Other companies, such as Huawei, provide the training for free. Their subscription and licenses are also free and flexible. Other products are breaking the market by providing such features. 

It doesn't support all standard interfaces. It is also not suitable for big companies with high bandwidth traffic. Its capacity should be improved.

Other products are becoming easier to access and configure. They are providing UI interfaces to configure, take backup, synchronize redundant machines, and so on. It is very easy to take backup and upgrade the images in those products. Cisco ASA should have such features. If one redundant machine is getting upgraded, the technology and support should be there to upgrade other redundant machines. In a single window, we should be able to do more in terms of backups, restores, and upgrades.

We definitely got a return on investment with Cisco ASA. We have been using it for eight years, which is a long time for IT. We only had one capital expenditure. Apart from that, there were no other costs or unexpected failures. It supported us for a long time.

We provide IT solutions. We provide solutions to our customers based on their requirements. We support them from the beginning and do the installation and configuration in the head office and front office.

We installed Cisco ASA to support a customer in a WAN environment. They used it for site-to-site VPN and remote VPN. They used it for accessing remote office locations via the remote VPN feature. They had Cisco ASA 5500.

I have not contacted technical support. There is a lot of information on the internet for troubleshooting. All you need to do is use a search engine and you will find the information you are looking for easily.

They can improve by adding a public troubleshooting process.

I have not worked with Cisco support for this firewall.

Technical support is great.

Customer Service:

Partner support is very good.

Technical Support:

FortiGuard Service is also good with the push method update.

Good VPN, both IPSEC and SSL (web-mode, tunnel-mode). An engineer/network administrator has tools to debug VPN issues that can occur during tunnel setup with other vendors' equipment.

SD-WAN feature at no cost. This is really great feature for remote locations (branch offices) and HQ, application steering between many ISP links becomes a simple task. Steering can be done dynamically by measuring link quality (latency, jitter, packet loss, available bandwidth).

Wi-Fi and Switch controller at no cost. FortiSwitch and FortiAP can become a kind of port extender of the firewall, all its ports can be referenced in firewall policies. When you have such management plane consolidation it gives you a simpler way to operate.

Security Fabric Framework is helping in analyzing sudden and rapid changes in whole infrastructure, and gives the ability to simplify daily operations (e.g. address objects synchronization between all firewalls in Fabric, estimating overall security rating, single-sign-on for admin access and many more)

Single Sign On support with deep LDAP integration (several variants for environments with different scales), RADIUS authentication.

Can work as transparent and explicit web-proxy, the last option supports Kerberos authentication which requires no agents installed on any windows server.

Human readable firewall policies with editable security policies and
addresses in single page. This is very useful and time saving feature.

Firmware upgrade process is very simple, even for cluster configurations it is fully automated by default.

Straightforward SNAT and DNAT; you may work in two ways: with Central NAT rules configuration and by applying translation directly inside firewall policies.

Bulk CLI commands are uploaded via gui in script file (portions of config file).

VDOMs are very useful when you need to grant admin role to clients separately. VDOMs in FortiGate can be represented in FortiAnalyzer's ADOMs (administrative domain), which can have different log storage policies, event handling and alerting configurations. You can create one VDOM working in NAT/Route mode, and another VDOM working in Transparent mode.

If you don't want to create and use second VDOM you can still transparently inspect traffic at layer 2 level while having only one VDOM in NAT/Route mode. This is achived by configuring Virtual Wire Pair ports that work like a separate bridge.

Ability to capture packets going through any interface of device (and VM too). You can set number of packets, filter out packets by IP and port number for particular troubleshooting purposes, then download a .pcap file from web gui and analyze it in your favorite programm.

Advanced routing (RIP, OSPF, BGP, PBR). It gives you a seamless and simple integration into a large network.

IPS, AV, Web Filter, AppControl profiles are working very well.

SSL Inspection and CASI (Cloud Access Security Inspection) profiles.

Rich logging options allow you troubleshoot most problems.

Straightforward HA with different redundancy schemas.

IPv6 support.

The support is very good, and we have had no issues. 

We are managing FortiGate using a FortiManager and it needs improvement with respect to the ease of administration tasks.

There is a lot of improvement needed with SSL-VPN.

Technical support could be improved.

To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet does not have a CASB solution and Fortinet does not have a Zero trust solution. Fortinet claims to do everything Zscaler is capable of and I'm looking for a comparison between the supported features.

Fortinet VPN and DDoS capabilities are great, yet we need to provide a solution that enables CASB and integration to the cloud.

We have been in contact with technical support and I find them to be good. We've had no issues with them.

We were not getting proper support from Fortinet. That's the reason we had to phase out FortiGate.

We are satisfied with technical support. We have not had any issues.

I personally prefer pfSense as it's open-source and you only have to pay a minimal fee for support. But for people who want that platform, I think it's a great solution. If I wasn't using pfSense, I would definitely go with FortiGate.

The two products are completely different. If you're using pfSense, you're basically using the entire open-source world — so you're based on FreeBSD, you're using Snorts, everything is open-source. It's very easy to make modifications and to figure out what's going on. You're not dependent on your single company's documentation, there's a huge user base. It's very easy to modify and extend. You can see what's going on — it's very transparent in that sense. It's probably a little bit more manual. With pfSense, You have to put in a little bit more effort to get things done, but, in the end (aside from the huge cost savings), you get all the features that are available in an enterprise firewall for just the price of support, which is also very minimal.

If you need to make any tweaks, you can do it all yourself. If you need to tweak ciphers for SSL for compliance (for PCI, for security compliance) it's not a difficult thing to do; it's a fairly trivial task.

I would like to see a more intuitive dashboard.

Technical support can improve in knowledge sharing and they can implement better.

The dashboard appearance needs to be more refined. It has to be smoother and more customer-friendly.

As the cloud is more prominent and more are moving towards the cloud, people are used to certain ease of doing things, and less complicated.

I understand that a firewall is a technical product, but we can try to make it a better customer experience which will increase usability with good results.

The technical support is very good.

Most of the time, whenever a ticket is opened and we reach out to support on behalf of our customers, they offer good advice and are very responsive. We're satisfied with the level of service we're provided. 

We contact technical support almost daily. They have good support.

We haven't really faced any technical challenges. We just install it and it runs perfectly. Therefore we don't really have any experience with technical support.

We find it's good for managing the network and offers good defense against attacks.

Technical support is great. It's really fast.

Overall the solution is pretty user-friendly. It has a good dashboard and is pretty easy to navigate.

The pricing is excellent. It's much less expensive than Cisco.

If it would integrate everything in one place then it would be an improvement.

I wanted to buy some switches and integrate them into the system, but we couldn't find anyone here in Israel to provide them or to provide support. Also, we could not get a replacement if something needed to be replaced. 

We wanted to use one vendor to do everything from one managed central management point. It may be something they offer now, but I am not sure.  

It would be helpful if we can have one easy place to manage, or from the cloud to all the devices that are at the client's location. This is the backbone, the switches, the access points, FortiGate, everything. 

Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it. 

So, if you could do everything without that, it would be much easier when you do V-LANs.

We have a partner that we work with. We have support at another level and I'm the primary person that looks after the firewall. If I have an issue that is urgent and I don't have the time to do the knowledge base to actually turn it around, we usually engage our partner, which has engineers that have the knowledge necessary to deal with it and who are certified in FortiGate. 

We have what is called FortiCare. We have FortiCare support as well for firmware and general updates and all those other things. I normally do updates and so forth myself. It's very little intervention from outside technical support.

There are a lot of known issues in some newer versions of the FortiGate operating system, so there is room for improvement with that. One of the problems I was having was with user mapping, and it is an issue for which I have escalated tickets with Fortinet support.

Having the newer features work in the older, more stable versions of the product would be great. Some of the new features might really help a lot, but there are problems with stability.

The technical support is very good. We're satisfied with their level of support. They are quite responsive and knowledgeable.

The scalability depends on the design and how it was done. You have to think about the next five years. We get lots of new updates on the older versions and if the product is still in support then the new features will be included.

Their technical support is good.

We didn't need to contact technical support very much. We had a local partner and if there were problems we contacted them directly.

There are some problems that support cannot give you a logical reason as to why it happened. For example, I had a case where I was dealing with a WhatsApp application that was giving issues. Technical support gave more than one reason it could be giving issues, but none of them solved the problem. Eventually I solved the problem, but it was far from the solutions that support had given.

Their support is good. They are experts. 

Technical support is okay. They could be more knowledgeable and faster.

Technical support is a local vendor. We are satisfied with the support that we have received.

We have not contacted technical support. We have been fortunate in that we did not have any issues that needed it.

The technical support is very good. We're quite satisfied with the level of support we receive. We find them to be knowledgeable and responsive when we have issues. 

I don't have any experience with their technical support. My partner contacts them for me.

We have a standard build. We give the client the laptop, and, especially with the pandemic, we send them home with the laptop or FedEx the laptop already configured, and the user is ready to go. 

I don't even need to know the client's password. I can just install the software and create a profile. The client fills the profile in with simple instructions, types in their password instructions, and connects it and they're good. It's really simple. 

That's why we have standardized recommending Fortinet. That doesn't mean that I don't support other solutions as well, however, the device that I like the best is the one that's easy to use for me and it's easy to use for the clients. The price point is not bad as well.

I have never had to contact customer support. We have a team that handles all of the troubleshooting; however, they do provide excellent documentation.

We used a different party for support — they were pretty good.

I don't like that anything more than very basic reporting is not included. You have to buy their cloud module that's an add-on for getting more customized reporting.

It has just about everything that we are looking for and the customer is needing. It's just the reporting part that is lacking in the base application.

Technical support could be improved.

The technical support is good. We rely a lot on the documentation which is a good standard. 

Technical support is good but the response time could be faster.

When it's overloaded, it works slower and overheats.

The data analysis could be improved.

The support could be improved upon somewhat.

The performance could be a bit better. Right now, I find it to be lacking. Having good performance is very important for our work.

The command line operation is a bit out of our depth.

The cloud management should improve. There are other manufacturers that have better management cloud solutions. Aruba, for example, is very good at this aspect. Fortinet could look to them as a model of how to do something interesting with management solutions.

Fortinet across the board needs to improve the LAN aspect of their products.

The solution lacks multi-language support.

They could offer access points to small companies and firewalls at those access points. Aruba, in that sense, is much better for smaller organizations as they provide this possibility.

I never had to deal with technical support directly, but I've never heard the guys complain about it.

Technical support, by and large, is very good. Fortinet has a very fast response time for their support tickets. It doesn't matter if the help is coming from the local distributor, or from web support. I don't face any problems with their level of attentiveness. I'm quite satisfied.

I haven't reached out to technical support and therefore can't speak to their level of responsiveness.

We have premium support from Fortinet and it is quite good.

In terms of what could be improved, the 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

In terms of the FortiGate IPS, we haven't gotten additional tools because they are not free, and we have to purchase them to maximize this IPS feature. As long as they can perform some basic functions to meet our business needs, that is okay. I'm okay with this feature right now, so far.

In the next release of FortiGate the price could be better.

Technical support is acceptable, and they're good in terms of local support and global support. If they cannot resolve the issue they will pass us to another level of support. 

I'm not sure if the solution is really lacking anything major. For us, it works okay.

They seem to have made a lot of improvements since the last release.

Technical support could be better. You don't always get the level of help you need right away.

I think some improvements could be made in vulnerability scanning. I'd also like to see additional features in the authentication. They support RADIUS, LDAP  but the solution doesn't have API integration with other solutions. They have API in FortiAuthenticator, but not in the firewall and not all customers want to buy another solution. 

Their technical support is very good.

Every time we've had to open up a case or get their help, if we surpass that person's ability, it gets escalated right away. So it's very good. It usually gets resolved within a day or two.

I have never used technical support from the vendor.

The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response.

The support is the main thing that needs to be improved.

We utilize the services to ensure the stability of our network and clients protection from external treats. With the recent pandemic mobile working have increased in demand and Fortinet have easily bridge that gap to continue to support employee needs.

We had some issues with the local support, particularly with regard to purchasing the subscription. It took a very long time and at one point the license had expired and it took a while to sort out. 

I haven't worked with the technical support. I did face some admin problem with the team here in Egypt.

Customers are more inclined towards FortiGate because of application control, web filtering, and anti-spam features. The support from the FortiGate team is good, and price-wise, it is affordable.

The solution is very, very easy to use.

The user interface is very nice.

The product seems to offer pretty good customization.

The configuration of the product has been very straightforward and simple.

The reporting on offer is quite good.

The initial setup is straightforward as well.

We've found the pricing to be pretty good.

Technical support from the partner has been very helpful.

Usually, we have our maintenance plan once a year, like a power-down test and things like that. But I'm not sure whether we have a contract with a partner company to do that or not. I believe our network engineer department may have used Fortinet technical support, though I have not received feedback on it.

The solution has a very good set of rules.

The customization potential is quite impressive. It can be customized based on our licensing contracts.

The initial setup was pretty simple. We didn't find it to be overly difficult to execute on.

Technical support is rather helpful.

We find the stability to be pretty good.

We didn't have any trouble setting up the solution.

We find the pricing to be fairly good.

I haven't used their official tech support, which is actually a good thing. The reason I haven't used their official tech support is that they have a support mechanism in place. I have direct access to a local sales engineer, and when I have problems, I call him up on the cell phone. Based on that, they definitely support their partners 100%. They are definitely channel driven, and it shows.

Fortinet FortiGate offers good technical support services.

I haven't really dealt directly with technical support. Once, when I ran into an issue, I spoke with my local partner. Other than that, you can find the answers you need via the help navigation.

Therefore, I can't speak to the helpfulness of technical support. I can't speak to whether or not they are responsive or knowledgable.

I have been satisfied with the help I've received from my local partner, however. They've been quite good.

The support is they provide is good.

What I like the most is the configuration and that it's simple, and straightforward to maintain.

The UTM configuration on-premises is straightforward and simple to use.

Support is good and the interface is simple and intuitive.

We have been in contact with Fortinet several times and the technical support that we have received is absolutely fine.

Technical support needs to be improved.

The solution isn't really lacking features per se.

The product does need better support in the cloud environment. It's not exactly cloud-native right now.

The solution needs to do more on the deployment in the multi-cloud. For example, clients have GCP and AWS. How do we deploy FortiGate in a cloud environment? Right now, there's no solution for that.

We're worried that the scalability isn't as good as it could be.

The solution has many valuable features. We tend to use all of them.

The initials setup is pretty easy.

The solution offers very good documentation.

The solution can scale well.

We've been happy with the technical support we receive.

The product is reliable and stable.

Fortinet FortiGate is stable so far. We had a difficulty, but after we opened the support, we found out that it was only from having the wrong config. But so far, it is stable.

The Fortinet support needs improvement and also the quality control of the firmware (there are a lot of bugs)

The technical support was quite good.

I've never contacted technical support. Having never dealt with them, I can't speak to their responsiveness or knowledgeability. I don't know enough about them from any kind of personal experience.

Technical support agents are really responsive. They are a small company, but they are providing high-quality technical support every time we contact them.

Our primary use case of this solution is for the firewall and IPS; the security on behalf of our network, to support north and south traffic. We are customers of Fortinet and I'm a systems engineer.

We have not needed any technical support for the Fortinet FortiGate service.

Whenever there's an issue and we contact support, the response is positive. The support is impressive. 

The web filtering facility and application control are the most valuable features from the point of view of our clients. The VPN feature is also quite popular amongst our clients. Two-factor authentication is one of the good features in Fortinet. These features are important for the current scenario of security. Security has become a necessity nowadays. With cyber-attacks becoming more common, protecting an organization's data is one of the major tasks. 

It is also very stable and scalable, and it is very straightforward to configure. Their technical support is also good.

I only talk with people here in China that are the Chinese sellers or distributors from Fortinet. They are Chinese and I don't speak or understand one single character Chinese. So for me, it's very difficult to communicate with technical support. Most of the time, I let them talk with one of the people who I know who is fluent in English and Chinese. That's what I do. 

Most of the time, I can do all the research on the internet to see what kind of device I need and then I get a translator and we figure it out.

Technical support is good.

Their technical service is quite good. The application notes and the help on the web are quite good.

I would rate technical support an eight out of ten.

Technical support was very good.

With only two people in the company, we haven't needed to scale. Our roles include software development and providing technical support for various clients.

Over the past two years, we really haven't had any issues that would require us to reach out to technical support. The user experience has been good. If we run into little issues, we may reach out directly to the vendors, however, I can't say that I've spoken with technical support. I wouldn't be able to evaluate their services or speak to their level of knowledge or responsiveness for that reason.

We don't have any experience with technical support. No problems have really presented themselves, and therefore there hasn't been a need to reach out at all. Therefore, we can't really speak to the helpfulness of technical support.

The solution is designed in a way to help you, the support is good. 

The technical support could be improved. There is a long waiting time for a resolution.

Fortinet support is good. They resolve tickets relatively fast. So we've had no issues with that. And I don't know about other regions, but in my region, the salespeople working with Fortinet are strong. They're aggressively working on the sales part. So in the Pune region and the rest of Maharashtra, they're winning more contracts, and people are using FortiGate Firewall.

When we tried to find something better, our IT subcontractor recommended FortiGate or Stormshield. I tried to find a subcontractor at my location for both, but I could only find a subcontractor for FortiGate, so I chose FortiGate. I wanted to have a local subcontractor. There are some products for which we don't need local support, but for some of the products, such as a firewall, we prefer to have local support.

There are some limitations to the solution such as publishing multiple servers with a single IP. I'd also like to see some improvement in the support system. 

Technical support is quite poor, similar to Cisco. Technical staff are usually people that they've hired who are generally inexperienced. 

There is always room for improvement on the solution. 

Their client VPN is not always working that well, so on computers specifically that could be something to change.

It is pretty expensive, but I think all of the solutions are, so it's something that's expected.

There are some bugs that are in the program. Occasionally when there are updates, there's a bug or two that you might find that cause issues. There was a major issue for a while, and I don't know if it's fixed yet with a third-party VPN provider.

If you have another brand of VPN where you have to put an SSL VPN between two devices, Barracuda doesn't support that at a certain point. You can't actually build the VPN between Barracuda and a different device of a different brand.

Technical support could be more reliable and more professional.

I would like to see better support for switching between internet devices.

What I like best about this product are the support and the features.

I've used the technical support and they do a great job. 

I think the technical support is very good, I haven't had any problems with them. 

It is superb. They are really good, and the support is above the industry standard.

I have called their tech support a lot. They are great.

As the head of technology, I design networks and infrastructure. While designing the infrastructure, my concern is the security part, including the firewall. The solution has to be automated and I need to have proper support once I install the infrastructure. I need 24-hour support, which cannot be done on my side as my IT team is small.

The way Barracuda has helped is that, once I have configured a system, it is taken care of by the Barracuda support team. If anything goes wrong or I need any kind of support, I just call their support number and get 24/7 support. They call me back from this or that country, they take over the firewall, and they provide the solution. They are basically working as my extended support team. This is one of the advantages of Barracuda.

In addition, during the eight years I have been using Barracuda, I have had hundreds of thousands of attacks on my network and all of the attacks have been addressed by Barracuda with a proper solution for all of them. My network has never been interrupted, there has been no denial of service—nothing like that—for eight years. That's why I am loyal to Barracuda.

Overall, Barracuda has increased the speed and performance of the infrastructure by 15 percent. And it has decreased expenses in the sense that it is protecting my data. In the smallest network that we handle, the value of data per year is €20 million.

I haven't experienced many problems when dealing with the solution, so I don't know if there are areas that need improvement.

If a user doesn't have a large amount of experience in Linux systems, they will have problems using this solution. Users need to be highly skilled in troubleshooting competency. Users who do not have such skills will find the product difficult to use.

Sometimes if your network goes down, you might experience an issue on the captive portal. This may require a restart and it also may require that you load it again. I'm used to the system, so I know what to do, but it can happen from time to time.

It can be really easy  to deal with Technical support. Technical support is avaible every time I call . But sometime if Technical support do not privide you the solution, so you should double check and solve the issue by your self.

The most valuable features are ease of installation and support.

Although the solution offers a lot of documentation, has a large knowledge base, and has a support forum, when it comes to actually contacting technical support directly, we didn't have access to that level of attention. Everything, therefore, was really on the team. We had to figure out how to troubleshoot on our own and tried to use documentation to guide us.

We've never used technical support but we're looking into it now and I think it's very comparable to SonicWall.

Given that the solution is a free and open source product, it doesn't have any technical support center. We just have the online documentation which is not one of the best, but it's good. 

We've never contacted technical support int he time that we have used the product. I can't speak to any level or service they provide.

I do not have experience with technical support.

It would be ideal if the solution could integrate with Snort and OpenVPN.

The technical support needs to be improved.

The solution offers good value.

The captive portal on the product is excellent.

The solution has a very nice load balancer.

It's a good solution for end-users. It's pretty easy to work with. 

The user interface is very nice. It's easy to navigate around the solution.

Technical support is very helpful.

Their technical support is excellent. They do have good support service. I don't use it because I've never had any problems with it, but the people I know who use it in bigger environments love it. You can even search their knowledge base and learn anything you want to know pretty quickly. 

It's open-source. You can pay for support if you need. 

One of the advantages of pfSense is that it is very easy to work with. It is a very good open-source solution, and it works really well.

pfSense provides a complete package. For some features, it could be the first solution in the world. It is a very good alternative in the market for a firewall solution. You don't need to go to Cisco or other brands with expensive firewalls. pfSense also allows us to offer some support services.

The tech support is excellent if you have a support subscription. If you didn't have that, you could be lining up for a while. It could be a hit or miss, whether you get someone that's actually going to help you. 

However, we have a subscription and therefore our support is always excellent. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we're getting.

Their support could be better in terms of the response time.

Technical support is very supportive. When we are in contact with them, there is no problem at all.

The technical support is organized well. We do most of the technical support for our customers in-house but there is a second level of outside support available. It is okay. 

Technical support is well organized. Most of it is in-house, but in the case there's also a we have access to a second level if necessary. 

The pfSense page, community support, and YouTube tutorials are good.

While the websites and forums are excellent, we don't have any dealings directly with technical support. Therefore, we can't speak to how they are in terms of their responsiveness or knowledgability. 

The support is good when comparing to other solutions.

I think the documentation is good enough because I've never had the need to contact technical support. I just use Google to get the information that I need.

With pfSense, we've never had to send an email to a Netgate official support organization. We follow the forum discussion — the community. We'd ask an expert in the community. That's how we deal with any issues.

Scalability-wise, it's great. Often, we need to research and assess the size of an appliance in order to understand what kind of environment the firewall is going to protect. From here, we have the possibility to do an upgrade depending on the type of model.

There is the option to have a firewall that is entry-level or a firewall that supports a huge internet service provider. We have many solutions that we can apply to our customer's environments, but first, we need to do these assessments in order to help us choose the right appliance. One appliance simply can't be upgraded to cover this entire spectrum of needs or the size of demand. This is why we must perform these special assessments.

With what I am running now, I haven't had to reach out to technical support. However, an upgrade failed two years ago and I needed to contact technical support to get me the new image for the device. They were very efficient. I was satisfied with the level of support I received.

We have used technical support in the past. They have always been very helpful and responsive. They are knowledgeable. We have no complaints. We're quite satisfied with their level of service. 

I found the technical support of the solution to be not very good at all.

We've never had to use technical support. Therefore, I can't speak to their level of knowledge or how helpful they are. We've always just been able to find the answers we need without their help, and therefore have never really had to use them.

I never had to contact their support because everything has been working fine.

The technical support was good in my experience.

The solution is free. However, you need to pay for support.

Most of the support is online.

We do a lot of reading, and if there is any support or suggestions we quickly do it. 

We have not contacted them directly.  

They have a lot of resources available on the internet that will guide you in finding your way around.

Highly it provide not only network security solution, it also supports the institution for network management. Additionally, we use for DNS server.

I don't have contact with technical support. If you have an issue, you can go to the online community and wait for someone to respond. There's no SLAs for that. The only way I would have access to their support is if I actually purchased a Netgate appliance.

They do not provide support in India.

The security could be improved.

I have not been in contact with the technical support because everything has been easy with the solution and there is clear documentation available.

I have not needed to contact technical support. I have not had any problems with pfSense.

I would like to see pfSense integrate WireGuard. Currently, pfSense uses OpenVPN, and there's nothing wrong with it, but WireGuard is a lot leaner and meaner. Unfortunately, it's not ready for pfSense, which is built on BSD, and WireGuard is not yet integrated with BSD. The issue is that pfSense is waiting for BSD to add WireGuard support. Once WireGuard is supported on BSD, you can bet pfSense will adopt it. 

Technical support is perfect, excellent. 

The user interface can be improved to make it easier to add more features. And pfSense could be better integrated with other solutions, like antivirus. For example, pfSense could add templates with firewall policies that a user can customize. I haven't tried to integrate pfSense with Microsoft Active Directory, but in Mozambique, we use many Kaspersky antivirus solutions. If pfSense integrated with these antivirus solutions, everything would be much more stable because most of the companies here have a different kind of security solution. Within a single company, you might find two or three different antivirus suites. So, for example, there could be an open-source solution that you get for free, but you can pay for the support if you want it. So for solutions like that, it would be great.

The solution could improve by having centralized management and API support online.

Technical support was through an online chat. I don't remember us running into any snags. 

It would be great to add more to security.

I know that pfSense has a lot of features, but I don't know how to configure and enable them. That is why I am looking into my support options. I am looking for better security and performance.

We had one issue with hardware support. The department head who was managing the solution became the director of the company, but he still has administrator access. And usually, whenever a WAN goes down, we always have a backup, but the hardware doesn't support more than one WAN. And then, if he wants to switch, he doesn't know how to reconfigure it. So we have to wait for the ISP to resume their services, which is not professional.

Also, the GUI is helpful, but it's not user-friendly. It's complicated. It should be more intuitive for the average user and have an excellent graphical view. Of course, the user will typically know about network administration, but it still should be easy to understand. A user should be able to find the feature they're looking for easily, but pfSense isn't so good in that sense.

Their support is good.

I've never dealt with technical support before. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are in terms of answering support-related queries. 

Easy setup, good support, reasonable pricing.

It was chosen by an IT support company.

The most valuable features are security and technical support.

Sonic has been very progressive, continually updating their product-line and service offerings to stay current with, and ahead of the evolving security landscape. Again, they have consistently developed great solutions for both the SMB and enterprise market which has enable our support team to leverage their expertise with Sonicwall across our entire client base.

We are very much happy with the support.

We do not often need technical support, but it is available from the local distributor or through the SonicWall portal.

Once we moved the units up to the Gen 6 platform, they could support SSL-DPI. We are huge fans of the DPI. That piece is incredibly easy to implement. I'd say probably the most powerful thing about the solution is that coupled with the captured functionality. 

We've never dealt with technical support. We've managed to handle any issues ourselves, in-house. I can't speak to the kind of service they provide.

Their technical support is good. For technical support, sometimes we write directly to SonicWall, and they provide the solution. We sometimes also contact our vendor for support. 

We don't like the technical support much. There is a long wait time to get a response. 

We use SonicWall for the connectivity it provides. We are customers of SonicWall and I work in network support.

The solution works very well.

They seem to be protecting themselves, or, at least, I assume they are, when they ask you to go online to enable the device.

The solution is easy to use. The actual setup is pretty easy.

I've found the technical support to be helpful. With all of the specifics, whether it's VPN stuff or the Analyzer products, et cetera, I'll always call for help. 

I'm very comfortable with the product. I know enough to really get to where I need to be and then to get it right. For my customers, I can call and get help if I need to, and it's nice to have that option, however, I'm really quite comfortable overall with its functionality.

The technical support is not very good. There is a facility called Geofencing where you can block IP addresses or certain countries.

When contacting their technical support, the technical support said that such a facility is not available in this firewall.

Another issue we had with technical support was when we wanted all of our VPN users to be migrated from our old firewall to this firewall, but somehow, technically they failed to do it. We had to configure it manually.

The technical competency of technical support is a bit on the lower side.

Technical support is good. There is no need for improvement.

Their technical support is very good. I also like its documentation, which is easy to access.

Their technical support is good. They are very helpful. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

The stability could be a lot better. The SonicOS, which we were using, was not that stable. Sometimes it is not performing as expected as per the policies we have set. 

The log, the logging capabilities, are not so good. For example, the logging for traffic logs was not being stored properly. The logging must support some storage space. If there is a storage device or storage mechanism within it we would be able to get the log easier.

For the SMV market, it's very nice support. We have no complaints. We're happy with the service they provide, especially at the price they offer.

The technical support is excellent.

The technical support is good. However, there is a language barrier because their support is based out of India and you cannot always understand the agent that you are speaking with. Sometimes support is outstanding, and other times you do not have the level of technical expertise that you need.

The web security and IPsec VPN are both valuable aspects of the solution.

The NAT policies and port forwarding are great. 

We were initially actually using very basic features for my organization's requirements. It is a very simple model. There isn't much complexity to it.

It's been very easy to implement and deploy.

The solution is stable. 

Technical support is perfect.

We've found the pricing to be pretty good overall.

Technical support is good. We have no issues with the technical support.

It is scalable. The entry-level companies are taking TZ 300, TZ 400, and TZ 600 from us, and they have 100 to 150 users. The bigger companies ask for the next-generation firewall such as NSA 2650 and NSA 3650.

We have about 50 customers who are using SonicWall. They include government organizations and corporates. We have lots of clients who have already taken SonicWall. They have the license, support, and subscription for two years. 

Whenever I needed any kind of support, the local partner gave me the best possible support. Their support was extremely good.

Tech support is knowledgeable when it comes to clarifying a technical issue. 

We don't use the technical support very often, but the last call I had with them, everything was resolved within the hour. I spent more time on hold than I did with the person. It was 15 minutes on hold, for 10 minutes to resolve the issue. Otherwise, it's great. 

The support for SonicWall TZ is good.

We experienced a very good level of support from the vendor and they have assisted us in real time via remote session when needed.

Technical support is very good. 

Technical support is good, there is no issue.

The support is excellent

I never needed their support.

They have a good technical support. I have no problem with them.

Licensing fees are on a anual or monthly basis.

There are no additional costs. It is only about support and license fees.

The user support could be improved because you have to go outside to get that kind of support.

During the Dell years, support was terrible. It has since improved.

Over time, this solution is becoming more complicated, and when I need support it often is not available. I would like U.S.-based technical support.

VPN functionality needs to be improved. As it is now, I need to combine another SSL VPN with my firewall. I want it to be done very easily. 

We've never contacted technical support in the past. We go through our vendor. We don't call SonicWall. 

Having to deal with too many lower-level people in technical support means that it takes longer to resolve issues, so escalating support tickets should be faster.

We are a solution provider and SonicWall NSA is one of the firewalls that we implement for our clients. I have implemented it for many companies and currently, I have four or five clients that we are supporting.

I have never called support. I only called when we first purchased it, if I had a question. I have not found any difficulties when contacting them, or just because I contacted only lower support. Then since it is a user-friendly solution, I didn't experience any problems with the device.

The technical support is great. I've never had an issue where I've needed to wait more than a few minutes for them to fix it.

Technical support is good and it is available online as well as offline.

The support that I get from SonicWall is good. They have supported us for more than ten years and we haven't faced any issues with them to this point.

Technical support is excellent.

The technical support is great.

Vendor support needs improvement. The frequency of time and support should be increased.

From a vendor perspective, we were expecting more support.

When we experience a technical issue, it should be rectified immediately. We are facing a delay with response and resolution.

I had to call support when one of my VPNs was failing. The VPN tunnel between two sites wouldn't stay up and they had us use a different security protocol.

They were very helpful. I found them to be quite responsive and knowledgeable. I don't think the problem with the VPN should have been there in the first place, however, that said, they did help us. I'd rate them, overall, at a nine out of ten.

It's very simple to use and the support is great. I am in India and they have a support office here. As a company product, SonicWall firewalls and their support has been excellent.

It's a simple, rugged product. When I say rugged, mechanically, it's a very rugged box. The same thing applies to Sophos also, it's also a very rugged box. It's rugged technology, it can take a beating and still be operational. 

One of the greatest strengths of the SonicWall system is that they have multiple portals for multiple tasks, whereas all the other solutions have no single tool for doing multiple tasks. That has been one major advantage of SonicWall. Regarding the SonicWall box, you need to be capable of taking multiple loads compared to the competition. That's a very unique feature of the SonicWall system. They also have an antivirus solution that is tied to their system which is called SentinelOne.

The support is very good. The product is also very reliable. There are always new, frequent updates — nothing more or less. It's very flexible; it's ready to go right out of the box, unlike some other solutions which require a lot of training. The GUI is very user-friendly. Even if you've never touched a firewall in your life, with a bit of time and practice, you'll get the hang of it.

SonicWall has exceptional tech support. I would rate checkpoint support best, SonicWall next, and Fortinet would be third. I would give SonicWall's tech support a rating of 7.5 to eight.

The structure of dealing with them is good. Once you get through to a support person, the support is very good. But getting through, getting to the point where you have someone on the line can be difficult. 

Overall, they're good at their job and they speak English.

The level of tech support varies: sometimes you get lucky and they're exceptional, and sometimes it's somebody that isn't that good.

The technical support is very good.

The content filter needs to be improved. I would also like to see better application filtering.

When we are troubleshooting problems, we find that the logs we see are not sufficient. It makes it difficult to find out what the main issue is. It means that we have to search further or perform another test to see what happened.

Technical support is in need of improvement.

It is able to fulfill my requirements. It protects our network environment. It has control over IPS, signatures, and it can also manage bandwidth and mapping. It is also stable and has good support.

I have contacted their technical support, and I have received good support.

Customers usually had FortiGate or WatchGuard. Those are the two major brands that we have replaced with SonicWall.

SonicWall is being represented by us here in Panama. FortiGate is a very strong solution here in Panama, but we're trying to get them out of our way. Price is the biggest thing that we might use to replace them. 

Support from the vendor is also a big thing here. WatchGuard has no representatives in Panama. They have no presence, so, it is very easy to replace them, but FortiGate is a difficult one to replace.

We did not require technical support.

I've never used SonicWall tech support. 

I've never opened up a technical support case with the product. It's worked quite well, and we haven't run into trouble that would require us to reach out. I can't really speak to how helpful or responsive they are due to the fact that I have no experience with them.

We're not happy with the device itself. We're obviously moving away from it for a reason that they're a Swiss pocket-knife of devices and they do a lot. However, nothing is really done well. They don't specialize in one thing that they excel at. They try instead to do almost everything and end up failing.

We're not particularly fond of the way it generally performs. We are finding ourselves rebooting often. There are freeze-ups and that kind of thing. The stability needs to improve exponentially.

Technical support is pretty slow to respond and escalate matters.

The cost of the solution is quite high.

The solution could use an invisible DPI-SSL or something that doesn't require a certificate rewrite. Most of the other vendors are doing that now. 

The SSL VPN performance-wise is terrible.

I had experience with support in the past and I found them to be helpful and responsive. I was very pleased with their level of assistance.

The technical support was very responsive.

We have regular contact with technical support.

When we send a support ticket, they respond to us within the day and resolve the issue.

They have a good response time.

I do have experience with technical support. The last time I interacted with them was fine. They handled and resolved my case. 

The support of the solution has been good. We normally go through our partner support but if anything is outside the limits of their knowledge then it gets passed onto the SonicWall support.

SonicWall NSa has excellent support.

I didn't use support over the last nine years, except for handling the device replacement itself. I needed a device replacement due to some damage, and they fulfilled my request and requirements. In terms of tasks such as configuration issues, I've never actually asked for assistance for those queries and therefore could not rate how helpful or responsive they are when they cover those matters. 

Level 1 and 2 support issues are handled by our in-house team, but for more complex, level 3 issues we utilise the vendor. The call response is great.

Their technical support is very good.

SonicWall support is good.

The security is great.

It has great performance.

The prices are similar to other vendors and the support is good.

The deployment process is simple. 

Their technical support needs improvement. I've been on hold with them for hours waiting for their support.

The cloud support needs to be improved. As it is, they only have support for Microsoft Azure. They should expand it to include providers like Amazon and Alibaba.

The main area that needs improvement is the documentation.

Sophos needs to be a little better at communicating with partners about changes, issues, patches, and so forth. 

The weakest point is the technical support because they are difficult to get into contact with.

The technical support is awesome.

Our primary use case is as a firewall, failover management of the internet lines. We have over 50 people using the product on 200 devices and we use it on a daily basis. I'm an IT support executive and we're a customer of Sophos. 

The technical support from Sophos is excellent.

The interface is great and easy to understand. Any firewall engineer who has medium to moderate experience on bylaws, can easily understand the UI. The language presented on various features and the in-built help, is very intuitive. If you have a problem you can figure it out there and then. As a result, there is less probability that we'll call tech support.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

I like the firewall, inbound, and outbound modules the most. The VPN feature also works well. It is very easy to configure rules in Sophos XG.

We have got local service here in Zimbabwe from Sophos, which is something that I like a lot. We have got good local support, and they come on-site when we have any challenges.

Sophos provides a lot of good training all around Zimbabwe. They are quite dominant here, similar to other solutions like Fortinet or WatchGuard.

Their support, we have a mixed review of it. It's good, but where it's bad, is because they're an international company that relies on many different continents to be able to get the support at different levels.

When we get into the people that are from India, that's where the support becomes not as efficient as we would want it to be. They have different rules of operating under and they don't show themselves to be flexible. Whereas where I am, currently I'm in Canada. When I speak to the support people within Canada, they're much more flexible when it comes to trying to follow us up on what we're trying to do and get the thing working. They're more flexible.

I have contacted technical support three to five times per year.

It's good, but I don't have many questions to ask.

We have received good support. For the small number of issues that we have had, we received help from IT. This included assistance with configuring some additional policies. Whenever we reached out to them, they were very prompt in terms of responding to us.

I have not had any experience with technical support.

I appreciate their support. Their support is good.

They have proper support in the technical point of view, and their English language is not clear. You know that they are not native English speakers. That's one of the things that I faced. But they have very good knowledge.

The support that we used was great.

Technical support is good.

The customer support is not that good. We found the support to be extremely slow in response.

I rate Sophos XG support a three out of ten.

We are satisfied with the technical support but having said that, we didn't need much support because the menus and all the online documentation is self-explanatory. There was no failure so we didn't have to actually log a call with Sophos. 

The web application firewall or WAF is very useful. Web application firewalls help keep your servers safe from hackers by scanning activity and identifying probes and attacks.
Using the Web Application Firewall (WAF), also known as reverse proxy, Sophos
UTM lets you protect your webservers from attacks and malicious
behavior like cross-site scripting (XSS), SQL injection, directory
traversal, and other potent attacks against your servers.
You can define external addresses (virtual webservers) which should be
translated into the "real" machines in place of using the DNAT rule(s).
From there, servers can be protected using a variety of patterns and
detection methods.

This function has been completely re-developed in XG, relatively of the UTM-9 version, and it works fine. I protect many internet web servers (IIS) for my customers with this function, due to of a lot of attempted attacks. It's a very useful and relatively simple to implement in Sophos XG.

Obviously, like all security systems, it is not a "fire and forget" configuration. It is necessary to properly analyze the system to be protected, create an appropriate policy and monitor its behavior once activated.

https://support.sophos.com/sup...

The number of ports, especially on the entry-level appliances, should be increased.

The price of adding ports should be reduced to make it more competitive.

The vendor needs to create materials to show the differences between Sophos products and those from other vendors.

Network management needs to be included in the package.

As it is now, it only supports ten multiple users, which is something that should be increased.

Technical support is quite good. That said, we really haven't had any issues with the product itself.

In the Firewall, the Intrusion Prevention System can be improved. Now because COVID has come to stay, people tend to work from home, and cybersecurity has been on the high side. 

It can improve more on the security aspect of this so that it can combat any major threat or common bug. I am not saying that the security has become compromised, as it is usually active, but they can improve on it.

Local and technical support can be improved.

When firmware updates are complete, there were issues with connectivity and VPN users. Recently, I stopped updating the firmware because I didn't want to obstruct the connectivity of the staff working remotely at different locations. 

I have stopped doing any updates until the issue can be addressed.

Our experience with technical support has been positive.

We have support from the local distributor. We have rarely had the need to contact technical support but when we have, we have had quick responses from them.

Technical support could be improved, it's not great. 

The first area that needs to be improved is customer support.

If I'm implementing a connection on the DMZ or WAN, I should be able to dive deep into the implementation, specifying what needs to be implemented or not. For example, I should be able to configure specific details for the DMZ, and not have to follow the templates that they provide.

We have had problems with the stability that affected business operations.

Our main use case of this solution is to support internal clients with virus scanning on laptops and on critical processors.

I have interacted with them a few times. I am very satisfied with their technical support.

Technical support for Sophos is very good and they have a big presence in South Africa. It uses something called Sophos Central, where support can fix the problem before you, as the user, actually finds it.

I think that the technical support is very good, and similar to FortiGate,

I actually dealt directly with a Sophos engineer and I must admit, they've been very fortunate that the guy can help even on the weekends and so forth. I'm very impressed with that.

I have not had any cases where I had to log technical support, but I believe it would be fast enough in case I needed to reach out to them.

Technical support is very good.

I like their technical support. With Cyberoam, I remember the technical support used to work closely with us. They used to configure some features for us and help us resolve problems, but not just by email. They used to work with us and show us how to do it. I think that was nice, but in Sophos, they give us instructions and help us, but by email.

We rarely contact their technical support. There was a time when our head office contacted their technical support. It was an issue in 2008, and they provided a patch.

The most valuable aspects of the solution are the web-filtering and the application control.

The solution is stable.

We've had good experiences with technical support.

The product is scalable.

I am not quite sure about that. In terms of the number of nodes, we have around 200 nodes. All the internet traffic has to go through Sophos XG. In terms of the number of people who handle the support, we have two people.

Technical support is good and easy to deal with. If I have a problem, I open the ticket, and I call, and the problem's solved automatically by them.

We provide technical support to the customers. We provide our own SOC to support the security solution and we complement the Sophos support plan.

Their technical support is fair, as well as the forums. Today there are only webinars, but we are trying to keep up with the latest technologies and trends.

We are also trying to keep up on how the hackers work because we are working with different associations of security worldwide that way we know the best way to protect our customers and what we need to sell to our customers.

I don't see any drawbacks to this solution at the moment. I know of other products that have more features and are more advanced stages, but ultimately, an organization's choice of software depends on its budget. If you have a small amount of money and you want to secure your network, Sophos XG can provide you with network security. Sophos ZG is a mid-range solution. There are solutions that are above it in terms of features on the market, but they cost more money. 

They could work on their technical support to make it more productive for the end customer. Some of my friends and colleagues have had unfavorable experiences with the tech support taking too long to close their ticket. However, I opened two cases this week and both have been resolved. 

Technical support could be improved. They aren't as responsive as they could be.

It would be ideal if we could have a more populated and detailed knowledge base. Generally, the new features must be tested before applying them to the production side. I would like to see more case studies, more application notes, and so on.

We would like to see an improvement in mail management. When passing from FG Series to XG Series, some mail features have been lost. We would like to regain them.

We offer contact center services and have a channel to reach the product support team, and they are ready to help when needed.

The integration could be a bit better. They need to allow their solution to integrate with other products and not just other Sophos solutions.

Sophos has a feature that in my opinion is very limited. They don't have enough VPNs on their models. They have the XG 750, which is a sizeable appliance. On those models, they used to have not enough VPNs. They always were short on that area. 

Pricing used to be very bad, however, they've adjusted their strategy recently. 

The product needs to improve its marketing in Mexico. It's not a well-recognized product in our country.

The solution's technical support is very bad.

There is an overall lack of documentation in relation to features and capabilities. We need these to help explain aspects of the solution to our clients.