Cisco Meraki MX Reviews

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.

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.

We have other solutions as well; however, since we integrated Cisco switches, specifically Nexus nine thousand switches, we wanted a single solution that could manage all of it. We chose the Meraki solution, and it actually works well together. It is very easy to deploy and manage.

For us, the most important aspect is, first of all, the reliability of the solution. We understand that Cisco solutions are very reliable, and we really like the simple management. It is a very straightforward solution to manage.

For our use case, there is not anything specific that needs to change. We have not found any major problems with it.

It has been less than a year since we have deployed it. 

It is scalable. We have Juniper solutions, and I would say the Juniper solutions can scale better, however, this solution is still very scalable.

We have not needed support. 

Positive

We are still using other solutions. We had solutions from HP Aruba and Juniper as well. Eventually, we plan to remove the Aruba and deploy something else, which is basically the Meraki and the Juniper Mist. We are migrating from Aruba to Meraki. We think the Aruba solution was complex despite being stable. Managing it is cumbersome. There were questions about the company's stability.

The initial setup for us was very easy. It was very simple for us, like nine out of ten.

In terms of pricing, I would say it is not the cheapest, but it was comparable to the others. I do not think it is very bad.

I would rate the overall solution at least an eight out of ten.

This is where most of my data is. It includes different geographical connectivity, SD-WAN, PSLAD, ISP load balancing, penetration testing, server spoofing, and active services.

This solution provides a better capability where I can create a virtual network. It allows direct connectivity and works with ISP. Since cybersecurity is my main concern, this type of miscommunication relating to vulnerability blocking is crucial.

Data is the only path, so optimization is essential. 

I have been using it recently. Six months ago, I set up 30 connections.

There is no significant issue with customer service.

Neutral

The setup process is straightforward and easy to use. I will include the documentation.

It is neither expensive nor cheap. It is moderate, middle level.

The solution is very well-rated.

I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

We deploy Meraki MX for our customers. If a customer needs a full wireless network or an upgrade, we'll right-size a firewall, like an MX67, depending on whether they need a wireless or cellular backup.

Typically, we deploy Meraki MX, which may accompany a Meraki switch, like MX120 or MX220, and we'll also include wireless access points. It all depends on what the customer needs. Typically, if we're going to put an MX firewall in, we layer that in along with a Meraki switch and Meraki access points as well.

The solution's most valuable feature is the Meraki dashboard, which is a single pane of glass. The dashboard allows us to see and manage all our Meraki customers. Since it's cloud-based management, we can remotely support Meraki, which makes it easy for us. We like to sell and deploy Meraki MX because of the ease of management.

It can be hard to get a hold of the solution’s technical support team.

Meraki MX is a stable product that rarely fails. We have Meraki firewalls that have been in service for more than seven years.

We have a couple hundred Meraki firewalls active for customers. A firewall can support many people. If you have a big MX100 in a corporate office, it can handle a couple hundred endpoints. We add people or devices, and the solution just picks it up without any problems.

It can be hard to get a hold of the technical support, but once you get hold of somebody, they know what they're doing.

Neutral

Some of our customers wanted Meraki. Once we started deploying Meraki based on our customer requirements, we found it to be an easier product to work with. Depending on the customers, we also deploy other solutions like Ubiquiti, Juniper Networks, SonicWall, and FortiGate.

SonicWall and FortiGate might have a higher throughput on their VPNs than Meraki. However, Meraki seems to be slightly more stable and easier to configure.

Setting up Meraki MX is like setting up any firewall. The solution's initial setup is fairly straightforward once you understand the dashboard's GUI features and get it built and configured into the portal.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven out of ten.

One person can set up and configure multiple firewalls, and then we'll go out and deploy them.

The return on investment with Meraki MX has been good because we rarely have to replace a piece of equipment for a customer. As long as it's licensed, Meraki warrants it. Once we put it in place, the solution rarely fails. We're rarely out of pocket for any defective product in terms of a warranty. If the customer wants it and it's licensed, Meraki will replace it.

Every customer is a little bit different. We license both Meraki MX with basic enterprise licensing and advanced security licensing to different customers. We have a customer who uses all advanced security licensing because they like to do managed traffic shaping and offer guest Wi-Fi solutions inside their stores.

We like Meraki products, and we'll continue to use them. We're a national reseller of Cisco Meraki.

Overall, I rate Meraki MX eight and a half out of ten.

I use the solution for some simple usage in our office for the people, so there is nothing too much. I am interested in the scalability of the tool.

The solution's most valuable features stem from the single pane of glass dashboard, along with other components of the tool like configuration, administration, monitoring part, integration capabilities with Cisco solutions, and ease of comparison with other Cisco equipment or Cisco Meraki hardware devices.

I don't think I can comment on what needs improvement in the solution because of the usage of Meraki MX in our company. The tool is not complex. For my type of usage, I am satisfied with the results of the product. I think that I may use the product on a larger scale.

The fact that the product is a little expensive and how it needs to be made cheaper from an improvement perspective is a debatable topic, in my opinion.

I have been using Meraki MX for a year and a half.

I use only Cisco hardware in my building, where I also have my network with Meraki MX. I don't have any problems, and I haven't tested the equipment in a multi-vendor environment.

I didn't reach the need to use a relevant scalability test in my company because I am using the tool for the first time for just two users and four guest users. Before I can talk about scalability, I should use the tool's scalability features.

I prefer Meraki MX for personal use. In professional terms, I am working with Cisco on a regional basis in Europe.

I am happy with the technical support for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

For networking and my personal use, Meraki MX is the first infrastructure I have experience with, but on a professional side, I use Cisco.

The product's initial setup phase was simple, considering how Meraki's documentation is very intuitive, which explains how to use the platform, its configuration capabilities, and its administration.

The solution is deployed on the private cloud.

Depending on the purpose of the solution for the user, it might be worth the money. If a user wants to use extra hardware equipment at its full potential or full features on a long-term basis, Meraki MX is a good choice. If you don't want to have a complex tool with features, workload, and so on, Meraki MX can come across as an expensive solution.

The product is a little expensive.

I did not choose any other solutions in the market since I got familiar with Meraki MX. I wanted to start with Meraki MX because I thought it was the most appropriate hardware that I could use, especially to add access points, some IoT devices, and switches. Meraki MX is a tool that I can build an infrastructure around.

Within Cisco, I checked for second-generation MV cameras.

For sure, I will recommend the tool's potential users to at least do a demo because one of the best parts of interacting with Meraki is that users can use a demo version for a certain period and do their own tests to see if it is okay or not. After I was okay with the functionalities, I went to use the product for myself.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.