Cisco Meraki MX Reviews

Our main use cases for Cisco Meraki MX include using it as a firewall and for guest security, specifically for our wireless guest security, and we are using it as a security firewall, MX95.

Regarding Auto VPN technology, we are using Cisco Meraki MX as a security device, and in security, we are using features such as VPN, site-to-site VPN, and guest sponsor access for Wi-Fi users. We are using Cisco Meraki MX as a security appliance for our guest users connected on the Wi-Fi network, and for VPN, we are using site-to-site VPN, which we find to be a very good solution compared to others. There are multiple features available; users can use Cisco Meraki MX as a firewall or the wireless controller.

We have sold Cisco Meraki MX, and currently, no customer has used SD-WAN features yet. However, there is an ongoing project where we are using Cisco Meraki MX as an SD-WAN solution as part of our progress.

The features of Cisco Meraki MX that I find the most effective and useful include cloud access, monitoring, and stability, along with ease of configuration. It is very user-friendly for configuration, as even L1 engineers can perform the configuration, and the GUI is very simple.

Setting up Cisco Meraki MX requires only internet access, and the rest is very simple.

We have used real-time analytics in Cisco Meraki MX for monitoring, and we have enabled it. It is very effective, though different from what we do on the DNA Assurance. It is compact, effective, and very useful.

The hardware solution for Cisco Meraki MX comes with a higher price. An improvement would be to use Cisco Meraki MX as a software solution as well, which might reduce the cost.

The price could be reduced by around 30% to make it more comfortable.

There should be a single dashboard for Cisco Meraki MX security appliance, switches, and MR wireless devices. All three should be visible in a single dashboard.

I have been working with Cisco Meraki MX for more than three years, and recently we deployed and sold Cisco Meraki MX9500 as a firewall and security solution.

We have sold Cisco Meraki MX, and currently, no customer has used SD-WAN features yet. However, there is an ongoing project where we are using Cisco Meraki MX as an SD-WAN solution as well.

There have been no issues with stability after deployment. There have been no complaints. For stability, I would suggest that Cisco Meraki MX is the most stable device from the security processor.

Regarding content filtering features, we are using content filtering and malware access, along with all security features in Cisco Meraki MX9500. We have received good feedback from customers because since installing Cisco Meraki MX9500, we have not received any complaints. There have been no outages, no stability issues, and we have not found any vulnerabilities during security audits. It is compatible with all different OEMs, and for VPN, site-to-site VPN has been configured with other firewalls as well. We are getting very good responses from customers as there have been no complaints where we have deployed Cisco Meraki MX9500.

Cisco Meraki MX is easy to scale.

Cisco's TAC support for Cisco Meraki MX is excellent because no other OEM provides support at this level. For support for Cisco Meraki MX, I would rate it as a nine.

Setting up Cisco Meraki MX is easy; we require only internet access. The rest is very simple.

The hardware solution for Cisco Meraki MX comes with a higher price. An improvement would be to use Cisco Meraki MX as a software solution, which might reduce the cost.

The price could be reduced by around 30% to make it more comfortable.

My advice for those who are considering Cisco Meraki MX is that it is a cloud-based solution wherein you can see all of your Cisco Meraki devices on a single dashboard. It is very easy to configure and manage your network through Cisco Meraki, and you can manage multiple sites and multiple branches on a single dashboard. For customers who have multiple branches and multiple offices, Cisco Meraki MX is very useful. I rate Cisco Meraki MX a nine out of ten.

My main use case for Cisco Meraki MX is to connect the different sites of a company, forming an SD-WAN across all the sites.

A concrete example of how this solution made communication or work easier between the company's different sites is that, since it has a centralized web configuration panel, it allows remote configuration of the device. Additionally, you can send them by mail and once they are connected to the power supply they automatically receive the configuration.

I consider the best features that Cisco Meraki MX offers to be the ease of configuration and the performance.

In terms of configuration, I find it very simple through device tagging; with those tags, different configurations are added. Having a web panel and having device maps also helps a lot. In terms of performance, these are devices that work very well, they do not overheat, they maintain high availability and also allow you to use more than one fiber-optic connection, for example.

I would like to add that it frees you from having to use MPLS networks that depend on carriers, which are much more expensive.

Cisco Meraki MX has positively impacted my organization by reducing deployment time for new sites and reducing communication costs.

To achieve that reduction in time and costs, previously you had to send a person to a site to finish installing and configuring the device. Now I save that because I configure the device centrally and it is just a matter of delivering it; it then receives that configuration and is fully operational.

I think Cisco Meraki MX could improve its price and perhaps enhance the ease of deployment of the root device that can be deployed in the Azure cloud, for example.

I would like the ease of deploying the root device in the cloud to be as a marketplace product that is more configurable, can be deployed more easily, and above all that there was clearer documentation.

I have been using this tool for about three years.

I consider Cisco Meraki MX a stable solution.

I would describe the scalability of Cisco Meraki MX as being one of its strengths, as it can scale by adding new devices and adapt to newer or older devices, which sets it apart.

My experience with Cisco Meraki MX customer support has been fine.

Before Cisco Meraki MX, we used MPLS networks from the communications carrier, and we switched because they were really expensive and did not offer this granularity and control by our company.

There are specific challenges my organization faces with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco Meraki MX has helped to solve, such as having greater control of traffic between sites, having greater security, and enabling or disabling services on a regular basis.

A concrete example of how the tool has improved security or control between sites is by enabling guest Wi-Fi networks at each site with a customized bandwidth cap and increased security.

I have seen a return on investment with Cisco Meraki MX, as communications have improved by between twenty percent and thirty percent.

My experience with the price, implementation cost, and licenses of Cisco Meraki MX is that it could be a bit cheaper. It is not a cheap product.

The aspects I find bothersome include the pricing structure, and also problems that occurred in distribution, because there were logistical issues and no devices available.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Cisco Meraki MX.

I assess the impact of Cisco Meraki MX in my IT environment as having greatly improved operational efficiency, processes, management, and incident resolution.

A concrete example of how operational efficiency has improved is in device deployment and subsequent configurations, avoiding the need to connect device by device, since everything is done through profiles or tags, and the initial delivery of the devices is also much faster.

I rate the end-to-end visibility that Cisco Meraki MX offers as very useful for monitoring and troubleshooting.

That visibility has influenced my organization's ability to resolve incidents or detect network problems significantly, as it helps you detect any deficiency that may be found at a site, to find problems with Wi-Fi access points and, in addition, it helps you find possible security risks you may have within your networks by seeing suspicious traffic.

My advice to other people who are considering implementing Cisco Meraki MX is that they should request a device for a demo if they have any doubts. I rate my overall experience with Cisco Meraki MX as nine out of ten.

We use Cisco Meraki MX routers for edge at multiple client sites.

I like the single pane of glass management in Cisco Meraki MX dashboard the most.

The dashboard definitely makes it easy to manage Cisco Meraki MX and easy to onboard new individuals. Additionally, Cisco Meraki MX API makes it really easy for me to automate a lot of changes over several thousand devices.

My experience with deploying Cisco Meraki MX is really smooth. It's fairly zero-touch deployment, but there are a few things that aren't quite zero-touch that I'd like them to fix. Because if I contract out to an ISP, they've got to have static addresses. The router has to be online before those static addresses can download, but they can't come online until I set the statics. So there's just no way to get around that of making that not zero-touch, but it is fairly close to zero-touch or at least as close as you can make it.

We have been using Cisco Meraki MX in our company for about six years now.

I don't know that I've ever had an issue of actual hardware failure with Cisco Meraki MX. I've definitely had issues of user errors, but I have never actually had a device fail out of the box. I've had some fail, but that was environmental, and I know why, and they shouldn't have installed them in that environment, but I can't fault Cisco Meraki MX for that.

Concerning how well Cisco Meraki MX scales with the growing needs of our organization, it does scale. At our size, nothing is going to scale perfectly. At many thousands of branch locations, nothing's going to scale perfectly, but it scales probably as good as anything, as good as I could expect from anything else.

I've had to open up several cases with Cisco Meraki MX tech support. They're always really responsive, and they do come up with solutions, so I'd rate them probably an eight out of 10.

I started at my company after they had already picked Cisco Meraki MX. I know they had considered Fortinets, and in past jobs, I have worked with both Fortinets and Junipers. However, I really prefer Cisco Meraki MX platform the best of everything I've worked with.

I don't even look at the cost of Cisco Meraki MX; I let the accountants deal with that.

We face a lot of challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks across the US and Canada. I know I just said Cisco Meraki MX API makes it easy to manage them, but that's still a big challenge trying to manage several thousand different firewalls. I still have to deal with the switching infrastructure on the LAN side as well. The management of that many devices is challenging, but thankfully they do have a lot of good tools to make that easier.

I don't really deal with the endpoint clients all that much concerning Cisco Meraki MX. I mainly deal with just the edge routing, so that's not something that I'm super familiar with.

My overall rating for Cisco Meraki MX is 8 out of 10.

With Cisco Meraki MX, we are using mainly the built-in tools that they have for the firewalls, especially the Meraki ones, but we are not using any software from them.

I did deal with FortiGate for firewalls, but in the company that I am working now, we do not use FortiGate. We use Cisco Meraki MX.

We are using the monitor actually for detecting some trends and traffic, especially directed from our offices to particular businesses or addresses.

Every day is the main feature that we use for them because we wanted to filter the content for our offices based on each office.

We are using that, especially for social networking and some threats and for some content that we do not want our employees accessing.

The usability and the easy configuration for the easy setup are valuable. It is pretty easy to set up all the features that they have.

It is very good with a very good relationship between price and usability. The pricing is what moved us to decide on Cisco Meraki MX.

They need to improve the user interface because it is a little clumsy. It is not that easy to find what you want to do. It is a nice interface, but it is a little clumsy.

We have some issues with the delivery because they had some delays on the distribution chain. That is something that they need to improve.

I have one year of experience with Cisco Meraki MX.

They are pretty good. We have not had any issues with them or we have not had any threats to our infrastructure. There is no we have not tested on in real time, but they are present on the firewalls.

We have six offices in the US, but those offices are really small, but we have around 1200 employees at this moment. The installations on each office is a small one. The biggest one is for 120 users, but our company is a big one.

We are looking forward to doing that, but not yet.

For me, it would be an eight. It is a very good brand. The prices are pretty good, and the service is good.

Positive

The prices were substantially different from one to another, especially the licenses for Fortinet and Check Point were so expensive. Cisco Meraki MX was cheaper, but the licenses were explained to us in a better way how to use those licenses because for Fortinet and Check Point, the idea is that you need to buy some licenses and other licenses for different functionalities. With Cisco Meraki MX with at least one license, you can have all the functionalities of the device.

We are a legal firm called Alonso & Alonso Law. We work with monday. We are planning to start using Snowflake next year. We buy other products through another vendor. The overall review rating for this product is 9.

My main use for it is site to site SD WAN.

The features I like the most about Cisco Meraki MX are the easy UI.

These features have benefited my organization by being very easy to configure out of the box for VPN. It is very simple to set up.

I am trying to see more AI integration from them in the future.

I have been using Cisco Meraki MX for three years.

I assess the stability and the reliability of Cisco Meraki MX as good, and I have experienced no downtime, crashes, or performance issues. We have redundancy in place, and for the most part, the product is really good.

Cisco Meraki MX scales with my growing needs for my organization very well because they are easy to deploy. You can pop up sites really fast with them, and it is easy to configure.

I would explain customer support as good, and on a scale of one to ten, it is definitely an eight at minimum.

It has always been Cisco for my organization.

I would describe my experience deploying Cisco Meraki MX as pretty simple. They have good support as well.

My impression from the end to end visibility offered by Cisco Meraki MX is that it is pretty good.

A specific challenge that I face with hybrid or distributed enterprise networks that Cisco Meraki MX addresses is the fear of proprietary data getting out into the cloud.

The end to end visibility from Cisco Meraki MX affects my organization's troubleshooting capabilities by providing really good tools. The tools that we have in place cover most of what we need.

I would rate Cisco Meraki MX between an eight and nine overall, and I will give them an eight to keep them on their toes. Nobody is perfect, but they are a great company doing good work. I rate this review an overall 8.

We deployed Cisco Meraki MX recently for our customer, a big ISP here in Madagascar. We have deployed it as an edge firewall and firewall for the campus of this ISP. At that time, dynamic routing was not yet available, so we implemented everything statically with all routing. That impacted the network because everything had to be made manually, and the customer wanted something dynamic. We made a wish, and five years later, dynamic routing became available.

Focusing specifically on Cisco Meraki MX, the major use case for it is the firewall at the edge of the campus most of the time, and also using SD-WAN.

As a partner, I think the biggest advantage of Cisco Meraki MX is the centralized management. It is easy to configure. Unfortunately, we do not have hands-on troubleshooting capabilities. We have to ask support for any troubleshooting needs, so we no longer have hands-on control of the troubleshooting process.

Regarding the best features in the product, I believe everything is good. As long as there are new changes, there are always many changes because most of our customers make wishes for any needs. For example, five years ago, we asked for dynamic routing, and now dynamic routing is available. I do not have specific features that we prefer, but everything works well.

As long as it works, it is acceptable for the customer and for us as an integrator.

Regarding improvements for Cisco Meraki MX, if more hands-on support could be given to customers for first-level troubleshooting, it would be appreciated because sometimes support is far away and the time zone is not suitable for the issue. Apart from that, the pricing is a concern. The price of Meraki and Cisco products is expensive.

We have been working with Cisco Meraki MX for five years.

Regarding the stability and reliability of Cisco Meraki MX, it is acceptable. The latency is also acceptable.

There are no scalability problems with Cisco Meraki MX.

Regarding the time zone problem with support, my experience with support from zero to ten points is between six and seven, so I would rate it as seven.

The installation process is easy.

We are a system integrator, partner, and reseller. We are a premier partner.

Regarding the network operations approach with configuration templates and tag-based management in Meraki when it expands to appliances across new branch locations, we configure the initial setup for the customer, and then all operations are made by the customer. Most of the time, we are involved only in the first deployment, and then all operations are made by the customer.

When comparing Cisco Meraki MX to other products, the first comparison is the price. All features that Cisco Meraki MX has, other brands can have also. The main way others win against Cisco Meraki MX and other brands is through pricing. Here in Madagascar especially, the price is always the first criteria to choose a product. Apart from the technical aspects, the price is very important.

Regarding challenges or operational adjustments that emerge when transitioning legacy MPLS routing protocols and static firewall rules over to Cisco Meraki MX Auto VPN, nothing especially stands out.

We usually deploy on-cloud.

If I had to rate Cisco Meraki MX overall from zero to ten points, at the beginning it was a four because of the static routing, but now that dynamic routing is available as a feature, I would rate it seven or eight. The remaining concern is regarding the pricing. I would say eight overall.

If they need to centralize management, I would advise Cisco Meraki MX, especially for campus networks.

The primary use cases for Cisco Meraki MX are especially for the firewall.

The features that I have found most valuable in Cisco Meraki MX include the dashboard and ease of access. My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco Meraki MX is that because of the management and monitoring capability, it is good. However, for third-party API integration, it is somewhat difficult.

I think they should focus on addressing the issues we have already contacted Meraki about, but they say it is a full firmware upgrade issue. Maybe it is not, or it may be, but still, it undergoes issues.

I would like to see additional features for Cisco Meraki MX in the future to make it closer to ten, particularly in terms of cybersecurity flexibility. If the caching issue and those other things are fixed, it will be a great product.

By cybersecurity flexibility, I mean that comparing it to FortiGate, FortiGate gives more security features than Cisco Meraki MX.

In the next release of Cisco Meraki MX, I would like to see features like wave filtering, access control, deep filtering, and many other things.

I have been working with Cisco Meraki MX for more than ten years.

I have faced some issues with Cisco Meraki MX, especially maybe it is an upgrade or out of date or out of support issue. Especially when there is a caching issue, there is an account caching issue. When we use it twenty-four seven continuously for the month, there are issues, especially on the LAN side. That way, we reboot the firewall, and everything will be stable.

Other than the rebooting or the cache issue, the stability and reliability of Cisco Meraki MX are good.

When the organization grows, Cisco Meraki MX device or firewall has its limit. If we reach that limit, it stays somewhat, but still, it recommends the upgrade road.

I would rate technical support for Cisco Meraki MX as a nine.

Before working with Cisco Meraki MX, I worked with similar products such as Huawei firewalls, routers, and switches, which are Chinese products.

My experience with the deployment of Cisco Meraki MX is that it is simple, very simple, and easy.

Currently, it is really difficult to say if Cisco Meraki MX is the best option on the market because Fortinet also has really good products. On the other hand, Cisco Meraki MX is also a good product, but somehow, especially with cybersecurity, mostly the firewall is selected.

I find the pricing of Cisco Meraki MX competitive. I would rate this review a nine.

The main use case is for a retail branch network consisting of retail stores that sell phones and other products. We have a firewall and a switch at each site, at least, and access points.

The feature that I appreciate most about Cisco Meraki MX is the visibility.

An example of how these features benefit my organization is that it is easy for entry-level help desk personnel to review the dashboard and see why a client has gone down.

End-to-end visibility affects my organization's troubleshooting capabilities because it makes it easy for entry-level people to troubleshoot.

To improve Cisco Meraki MX, I suggest more visibility into the back end.

I have used Cisco Meraki MX for about five years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Meraki MX as very good. I have experienced no downtime, crashes, or performance issues on the firewall.

I evaluate customer service and tech support by giving it an eight out of ten. For the most part, they are responsive and quick to address your tickets.

Prior to selecting Cisco Meraki MX, I considered FortiGate.

I was using FortiGate before adopting Cisco Meraki MX.

My experience with deploying Cisco Meraki MX is that it is very easy because I can configure it from the cloud beforehand.

Regarding visibility, my impression of the end-to-end visibility offered is that it is excellent. There is some functionality on the back end that is not visible, but overall the visibility is great.

There are specific challenges I face with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco Meraki MX addresses, particularly regarding visibility into backend operations.

Our main use cases are wireless and Wi-Fi for anyone in the office.

The features I appreciate most with Cisco Meraki MX include insight into whose device is using data, what hotspots they're connecting to, and seeing coverage areas where coverage is spotty and where it is good.

The feature I mentioned allows people to do their job more easily. They can pick up their laptop, go grab lunch, sit in the cafeteria, and do their work.

I think Cisco Meraki MX can be improved by bringing down the cost.

We have been using Cisco Meraki MX for at least five to six years.

I would assess the operational efficiency of Cisco Meraki MX in my IT environment as solid.

Cisco Meraki MX scales well with the growing needs of my organization. We stood up a new building, an annex building, because we had too many people return to the office and needed more space. We went with Cisco Meraki MX, and it was the same deployment process as when we moved away from the old wireless access points. We already had the playbook on how to do it and we were done in about an hour.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as solid. The support has been responsive, and we have not had too many issues that required us to open a ticket for Cisco Meraki MX. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate customer service and technical support about a solid eight.

I forget the name of the vendor we were using before, but there was someone that we were using previously that we did not like, and we switched specifically to Cisco Meraki MX because we were Cisco for everything else.

I would describe my experience with deploying Cisco Meraki MX as seamless. There was no downtime. We got the new access points installed and we were running immediately.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that we went through a third party who negotiated all the prices with Cisco for us.

At the moment, I face no specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco addresses. Everything runs smoothly with Cisco Meraki MX.

I would say Cisco Meraki MX optimizes the experience in a hybrid distributed enterprise setup, but we are not using the more advanced capabilities to have deeper insight into it.

My advice to other organizations considering Cisco Meraki MX is that if you are already using Cisco, the licensing is rolled into whatever licensing you already have currently, and it is actually more cost-effective than many other solutions out there.

I would rate this product an eight overall.

My main use case for Cisco Meraki MX is that we provide it to our customers for various jobs in the business, primarily as a firewall, protecting their services, and for routing needs.

A specific example of how a customer might use Cisco Meraki MX in their business is that they have it as a gateway entering their job. They put firewalls on it to protect themselves, set up their client VPNs or site-to-site VPNs. This gives them a secure link to other sites.

Cisco Meraki MX has positively impacted our organization by enabling us to sell it to other customers. That is the biggest way it has helped us with selling.

Cisco Meraki MX has helped my organization in other ways, such as improving efficiency or reducing support calls, because it is so simple to use. We are able to manage it with a small team for a very large number of customers.

Managing Cisco Meraki MX through the Meraki dashboard has changed my team's day-to-day operations. It has been difficult because most of my team have been used to CLI interfaces. If you work on CLI for a long time, there is resistance to changing to the GUI. However, everyone is coming around slowly.

I am not sure where Cisco Meraki MX's automated capabilities have noticeably affected my team's workload and network performance because we do so many devices. What we are doing is growing. We have moved into just doing more. I believe Cisco Meraki MX is a reliable device, but the amount that we have out there and that it is growing means we have just done more and more of it.

The best features that Cisco Meraki MX offers include their different levels of firewall, as well as their Layer 3 and Layer 7 firewalls. It allows the customers to have quite granular filters on their services to protect them. As part of that, they get to know what their clients, workers, or customers are doing on their network.

Our customers use those granular filters not day-to-day, but they look at that over time to see what applications are being used, what devices have been used, how their APs are holding up, and all that type of thing because they would know what traffic is flowing over them.

I appreciate the dashboard because, though it can be hard to use finding your way around it, once you can, it is very helpful for fault finding and actually determining what is wrong and where it is wrong.

Regarding Cisco Meraki MX's AI capabilities, I think its governance and security are very good. I appreciate its firewall features and it seems to do that quite well.

Cisco Meraki MX helps me protect my network and maintain reliable connectivity across my locations with the multi-uplink VPN, which actually helps. It provides reliability and gives a quick changeover if your VPNs fail. However, it is not really our organization; it is other people's, and we build them according to the specs they require.

Regarding Cisco Meraki MX's AI capabilities, I think its accuracy and reliability of output are very poor. That is one of the things that really needs to be worked on. If you ask me what needs to be improved, that would be it.

There are some things that seem to fail quite often, such as the cellular failover, which is not great. I think it needs to be made to 5G and it almost needs to be the default because it has been switched over as a backup for things that are not actually capable. The traffic is too big for the cellular 4G to handle.

The Meraki dashboard helps me monitor network performance and troubleshoot security or connectivity issues as that is its function. It lets you easily determine where and what has gone down and allows you to follow up on it. I think it needs improvement perhaps in its latency tools. The way that it presents data could be improved. When you look at the traffic, it would be useful to be able to have that in granular sizes so that if something goes down you can see the loss clearly at that particular point in time and what was going on. This applies to the uplink page.

Cisco Meraki MX does not integrate with FortiGate very well. However, the rest of it seems to be okay.

I have been using Cisco Meraki MX for about eight years.

Cisco Meraki MX is very stable. We have a lot of it and so we have a fair amount of faults come through, but I think given the quantities we have, that is still a relatively minor amount.

Cisco Meraki MX's scalability is good. I do think that if you buy the entry-level ones of the 67C and the MX68, they do not scale very well because the amount of clients is limited. However, as you get into the bigger models, it gets better.

The customer support for Cisco Meraki MX has been excellent. I think that Cisco should be very proud of the Meraki team. I would rate the customer support on a scale of one to ten as nine at least, and possibly ten.

The solutions that we used to provide were what was available and they were custom-built. This meant that they were not anywhere near as cost-effective as Cisco Meraki MX, but I am giving you that secondhand because I am not in that part of the business.

I think that fewer employees are needed, but I do not have any data to back that up.

Cisco Meraki MX is deployed in my organization using private cloud, but it is not really for us; it is for our customers. We do not use it internally ourselves.

I would suggest it was us. I would believe we were actually supplying it. We are a telco.

My advice to others looking into using Cisco Meraki MX is to make sure it fits what your requirements are, as it is very good.