Cisco Meraki MX Reviews

The product is quite secure, easy to manage, and well-connected with other devices. If anything goes wrong in one of the switches, MX detects and notifies us about the port that's facing issues. So we can fix it immediately. It is quite easy to access. We can access it from our mobile phones or laptops on the go. We can also detect the issues and monitor the network while traveling. It is the easiest part about Meraki MX.

The product is quite complex to set up. The product is dependent on other Cisco products. If we have Meraki, we must use Cisco devices only, which should not be the case. Any device which is running should be well-paired with MX. If we use Meraki MX, we must use MX in other locations. If we use Aruba or Ruckus, it does not communicate well with MX devices. It is like a monopoly.

I have been using the solution for more than three years.

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

The technical support is good. The turnaround time for the resolution of the issues has to be less. If something goes wrong, then we need direct help from Cisco. Without them, it takes a lot of time to rectify.

Neutral

The initial setup is very complex. We need some expertise to set it up completely, including the configurations.

We took almost a day to deploy the solution because we got help from a partner. The partners were helpful. In India, vendors are well-trained in Cisco products. Also, Cisco employees help us set up the solution on call. They help us not only with the setup but also with anything critical that comes up.

The solution is expensive. We have to pay the license cost and the cost of the device too.

If someone has Meraki MX in their organization and they buy a device from a different brand because they cannot afford Cisco, Meraki will not communicate with the device. The same visibility is not provided with other devices. Meraki communicates easily with Cisco devices, and we easily find the issues in the devices. Ideally, Meraki should communicate with a device even if it does not belong to Cisco. Overall, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

We are using the solution for end users with particular wireless infrastructures. We used it in a single branch to directly terminate the internet link.

It's flexible, easy to configure, and easy to manage.

Pricing is an area where the solution lacks since it is an expensive tool. Pricing needs to be improved.

I have been using Meraki MX for the last five years. Also, I am using the solution's latest version.

It is a stable product. Since last year, working at my current organization, I haven't found any issues.

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

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

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

I have contacted Meraki's technical support. Compared to Citrix, Meraki's technical support is fast and flexible. Within ten to fifteen minutes, the support team acknowledges the issues.

Meraki MX is the first SD-WAN solution I am using. I had done a PoC for Fortinet, but I don't know how the support is from Fortinet.

The setup is straightforward.

One single person can deploy the tool for all the branches. Only two people are managing Meraki, and they are from the same team managing Citrix SD-WAN.

The implementation can be done via Meraki's central portal. If we give access to any device, like MR or MX, it automatically reaches the portal and can be onboarded within five minutes.

It is an expensive solution. There is a five-year licensing requirement. We already renewed licenses for all our devices.

I would tell those planning to use the solution that it's very easy and flexible. However, the solution is very expensive.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case for Meraki MX is to establish a wide Internet drive over the Internet. We use it as a perimeter firewall and also as an SD-WAN device to establish secure tunnels and dynamically route applications over the best available route.

Meraki MX provides visibility from the network, especially if the customer has more than just the MX, including APs and switches. It offers a single management platform with visibility of the entire network.

What is valuable about Meraki MX is its unified threat management capabilities. Features are straightforward to use as you switch them on or off, which can be advantageous from a simplicity point of view.

Generally, the feedback is about the visibility of the network. Sometimes you want a little bit more control, and you don't have that control with Meraki MX.

We have been selling the Meraki MX for probably about seven or eight years now.

The stability of Meraki MX is very good. I would rate it as a nine out of ten, indicating it is very stable.

The scalability of Meraki MX is quite expansive. They range from smaller Z devices up to the big MX. It's generally scalable with little to no issues.

Technical support from Cisco is also very good. I would recommend a nine out of ten. The customer service and support have been satisfactory.

Positive

It always requires getting our system integrators involved. The initial setup is not overly complex, but it requires someone with experience to do a bit of configuration.

I would say the costs are fairly competitive. I would rate it as a seven or eight in terms of how competitive it is.

Competitors for Meraki MX include Fortinet and Aruba.

Yes, I can recommend Meraki MX to other users. It has the Cisco name behind it, which is well-known in the industry. The support is great, and it’s generally competitive from a customer perspective.

We use Meraki MX for the firewall, but typically, it's a great VPN software.

Meraki MX's VPN access for remote use is a valuable feature. The solution is good for load balancing.

The solution's pricing should be reduced. There are other remote tools out there for VPN access, and Meraki MX is gradually losing ground because it's expensive.

My new business owner went from having 14 devices to seven and then from seven to two. Now, I'm only paying for two licenses. I'll soon be moving away from Meraki entirely. The solution's price should be reduced so that new businesses can easily use it.

I have been using Meraki MX for ten years.

Meraki MX is a very stable solution.

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

Since Meraki MX has a graphical user interface, its initial setup is pretty straightforward. However, you need either a consultant or a technical expert to install the solution.

Meraki MX can be typically deployed within one to two hours. We implemented the solution through an in-house team.

You need to know the business use case for which you want to use the solution. If you want to use the solution for load balancing, you need to specify the use cases for which you want to use it and all that will be considered.

We have seen a return on investment with Meraki MX.

Meraki MX is an expensive solution. Meraki MX is a cloud-based solution, and we pay an annual license for our physical device.

We deployed the physical server, but Meraki MX is cloud-based.

Overall, I rate Meraki MX an eight out of ten.

As a telecommunications company, we use the tool for our customers. We use it for SD-WAN and standalone devices with Wi-Fi.

The features vary for each customer. The simplicity of configuration is the most valuable feature of the solution.

The product could incorporate tools like ThousandEyes into the system so we can see things directly. If we are going to a public cloud and do not have an end device in the cloud that we can monitor from the dashboard, the tools will allow us to see what a service or customer experience looks like going across that network.

I have been using the solution for about three years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. Stability is very good, but it's not absolutely perfect.

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

Technical support's pretty good.

The initial setup is quite straightforward.

We buy a free license upfront. Our customers pay for the solution on a monthly basis. All licenses are expensive compared to what they used to be in the routing domain a few years ago.

If someone wants a couple of SD-WAN components, it's a simple solution. It's more complex for others who require better bandwidth and bigger devices. We can talk to our customers about their needs and make the tool fit the customer's needs. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The product is used as a firewall. We can use it in remote sites like end-user client offices and data centers.

Ease of management is the best thing about the solution. Cloud management is pretty much the driver.

Most firewall vendors provide a pretty good amount of logging information, like errors, issues, and warnings. Meraki does some of it but does not provide detailed logging information. We can send it to syslog or SIM, but we can't get it from the portal or the device itself. It would be nice to get detailed logging information without third-party software.

I am using the solution currently.

The tool is quite stable. The stability is generally very good.

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

Generally, I don't hear any complaints about the support team. So, I think it's probably decent.

The initial setup was pretty easy and pretty simple.

The time taken for deployment depends on the environment. In some cases, it takes just a couple of hours. It could take a lot longer if it’s a larger environment with multiple locations. Usually, it can be done on the same day. We've got hundreds of clients, so we have a team focusing on upgrades and maintenance. For an individual environment, especially a smaller one, the maintenance can easily be done by one person. We need a team to maintain the tool for a medium or enterprise-level company. If it's only a couple of firewalls or within ten or twenty, it's pretty easy to maintain it. It's all cloud-based, so it's really simple.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten. The larger MX products are on the expensive side. It is not in the top price range, but it is closer to high than low.

People considering using the product must ensure it's sized properly for the amount of traffic in the environment they’re putting it in. Generally, it's a pretty straightforward product. However, it must provide extended logging. I'd probably rate the solution a nine out of ten if it provided more extensive logging. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We use MX to provide Wifi for all the clients, patients, doctors, nurses, etc. in our hospital, they are using the WiFi to use the internet. So, we are using it mainly for the internet. It is managed via a cloud-based Cisco dashboard.

MX is easy to manage, configure and install. 

MX can only be managed via a web interface, but I'm accustomed to using a CLI or a graphical interface. I would also like to see more reporting features. It doesn't provide enough information for me to know precisely about some clients. 

They could also add improve the content filter by adding Arabic. It only filters English-language content. Meraki should work on that feature for other languages.

I've been using Meraki MX for two or three years. 

MX is stable. The updates go smoothly, and there are no issues.

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

I used the ADSL Cisco router.  It was a catastrophe due to limitations on users. Once we exceeded around 200 simultaneous users, we started seeing a lot of problems.

Deploying MX is easy. It takes maybe half an hour. I didn't need any support. I could do it all myself.

I believe we need to review our contract and maybe get a lower price when we upgrade our renew our license. Hopefully, we can negotiate with Cisco for lower prices.

I studied other options, but I found Meraki was a complete product for allowing large amounts of users to connect to the internet.

I rate Meraki MX eight out of 10. It is a good product. 

Meraki MX is a firewall with wireless capabilities built in. We use the APs in approximately 10 different customer sites.

The most valuable feature of Meraki MX is I can manage the solution from anywhere remotely, I can throttle bandwidth, and create all rules. Additionally, it is secure for our customers.

I have been using Meraki MX for approximately six years.

Meraki MX is a dependable solution.

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

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

The support from Meraki MX is good. It is easy to get in touch with technical support 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are responsive and knowledgeable.

I have previously used Barracuda. For larger companies, such as banks and financial institutions, I use Barracuda firewalls. However, they are more complex. You have to have penetration testing. Every year we have penetration testing from external companies to make sure no one can get in because they have federal audits that come in and check banks. Barracuda is the better solution for this purpose, we've had great luck with them. We've always had perfect scores whenever we deploy them and we have external penetration tests. They have a 24-hour day, seven days week support similar to Meraki MX.

Meraki MX is simple to deploy and manage. You only need to plug it in and configure it.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house.

The price of Meraki MX is between $8 and $1,200. Additionally, we typically purchase a three-year enterprise license, and we pay approximately $899 and mark it up a bit.

I would recommend others call us, we can implement the solution for them.

We have three technicians for maintenance, and we all can handle servers, firewalls, and routers. Once we put the Meraki MX in, it doesn't require much maintenance. It has automatic updates and we receive all the firmware updates. Once they're in place, we don't have any issues with them. However, if we do, it's easy to get in and make configuration changes.

I rate Meraki MX a nine out of ten.