Cisco Meraki MX Reviews

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. 

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.

My main use case for Cisco Meraki MX is to provide site-to-site connectivity for all our locations. I also use some of the firewalling and secure features, along with the threat intelligence capabilities that are built into Cisco Meraki MX under the standard license.

Site-to-site connectivity for our locations has worked well in practice, making it easier to keep branches connected. Cisco Meraki MX has positively impacted our organization as it allowed us to deploy sites rapidly and quickly with very minimal downtime, especially with the cellular switching and multiple uplinks. The SD-WAN infrastructure is fantastic.

The best feature Cisco Meraki MX offers is SD-WAN, by far. The SD-WAN features and the store template features stand out most to me in Cisco Meraki MX.

The templates have helped my team keep configurations consistent across sites because they allow more inexperienced team members to actually set up networks and distribute the workload across the team. During ISP degradation or brownout events, my dual WAN or cellular uplink policies fail over almost instantly. The tradeoffs with local breakout are that you don't get the active intelligence compared to a large aggregator.

When expanding Cisco Meraki MX appliances across new branch locations, my network operations team approaches configuration templates and tag-based management by tagging the access points and the MX devices with the site designation, and then I use the configuration template there. Our criteria and policies that govern how Cisco Meraki MX appliances dynamically steer traffic across multiple uplinks involve always using performance classes with some custom metrics.

Cisco Meraki MX can be improved with more transparent licensing and generally better transparency around end of sale and end of support dates, which need to be communicated more clearly. Cisco Meraki MX's AI capabilities regarding accuracy and reliability of output are not great; I tried it once and it was not effective.

I have been using it for four years.

Cisco Meraki MX is stable.

Cisco Meraki MX's scalability is excellent.

Customer support is good. I would rate the customer support on a scale of one to ten as an eight.

I did not previously use a different solution; I inherited a solution.

There were no technical challenges or operational adjustments that emerged when transitioning legacy MPLS routing protocols and static firewall rules over to Cisco Meraki MX Auto VPN.

I have seen a return on investment.

I would rate Cisco Meraki MX overall a seven to an eight. I rate it an eight because there are some gaps, as no product is perfect, and it does not do everything for us, but it does the vast majority of what my business needs.

My advice to others looking into using Cisco Meraki MX is to make sure it fits your environment; if your environment is complicated, it is probably not the best product for you. If you need something straightforward and easy to use, Cisco Meraki MX is the way to go.

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.

I use Meraki MX in my company basically for site-to-site VPN connection, and it serves as a firewall for our normal office environment.

The most valuable features of the solution are the cloud interface for cloud management and the SD-WAN, along with certain features like secure VPN, built-in VPN, SSL, IPSec VPN solutions, and higher availability. It can accommodate carrier support because of which, other than the fiber, I can have one more point to access through a SIM card.

I do not have the kind of feature I need for SSL decryption in Meraki MX. It would be great to see the SSL decryption feature in Meraki MX.

I have been using Meraki MX for three years. I use Meraki MX105. My company is a customer of the product.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I haven't tried the tool's scalability features, but as far as I understood from the tech sheet I saw related to the tool, I rate the solution's scalability a seven out of ten.

Around 300 people in the organization use the solution.

Very rarely do I contact the technical support team of the solution. I usually contact the technical support team of the product when some update happens in the product. I faced some issues while updating the product once, after which I opened a ticket with the support team, and with their guidance and help, I could resolve the issue. The firewall was configured as active-active with high availability, so when one firewall was down, the other one was working fine. I haven't faced too much trouble with the product.

My experience with the support team was fine, and since most of the things are already available on forums, you can manage everything related to the tool by yourself.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, my company was using Sophos XG Firewall. My company switched from Sophos XG Firewall to Meraki MX. All our company's network devices are from Cisco, and with Meraki MX, we can actually add switches, routers, access points, and everything to the firewall, which in turn offers more stability and secures the network compared to Sophos XG Firewall. Sophos XG Firewall offered an IDPS firewall capable of stopping any kind of intrusion, but I was feeling worried about the switches and access point security. Since our contract with Sophos had expired, we moved to Meraki.

The product's initial setup phase is very easy. It has a very good web interface that is easy to manage and operate.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The deployment was carried out in two sites, which took around two days to complete.

In my country, the product is cheap compared to the UK because of the differences in taxes.

If you are looking for a solution that is easy to manage and offers stability, and if you are not really very specific about SSL decryption, then you can go for Meraki MX.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

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.

There are numerous good features in this solution starting with the ease of deployment and simple configuration. Cisco provides good support and if any hardware needs replacing, they'll do that. Of course, you pay a lot for that. It's an outstanding product with outstanding people on the team. 

The Cisco supply chain is problematic although that may not be all their fault. What I really want is to be able to sell the solution and deploy it for my clients. They are very cagey about the availability of their product and they definitely take better care of their larger clients, pricing out mid-sized organizations. I'd like their policy rules to be closer to those of some of the other vendors. They're very complacent and I find the rule set to be a little arcane. There's no company ou there that does the combination of hardware quality, reliability of service, and most importantly, the quality of the interface. 

I've been using this solution for about five years. 

The stability is great, it's just set it and forget it.

The solution is extremely scalable. The company I currently consult has 500 users but it can go up to the thousands. 

Meraki has the best customer support with very, very knowledgeable tech people. I've never had a Cisco Meraki tech who didn't know what he or she was talking about. That's not the case with other vendors. 

Positive

I've previously used Juniper, Checkpoint and HP Aruba among others.

The initial setup is easy and maintenance is minimal.

The ROI is there because the solution works. If you're going to invest in Meraki, you want to keep it at least five years so you get the value back.

Licensing costs are ridiculously high. You might pay $12,000 for a firewall and then each year it'll cost you another grand or two just for the support which can amount to 15% of the cost of the initial purchase.

The big thing now is SD-WAN and it's been that way for a number of years. I always remind clients that Meraki is one of the biggest players in the SD-WAN market, meaning their hardware is deployed under another label as being the SD-WAN box. I always suggest that clients buy the equipment from Cisco because the provider's likely going to use it anyway and leverage their technology. It's important to size the solution according to your needs. There are different tiers of performance so don't oversize or undersize. It's better to aim a little higher and anticipate replacing the equipment in five years.

I rate the solution 10 out of 10. 

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.