Cisco Meraki MX Reviews

Meraki MX offers advanced filtration options, plus it behaves like a router and a firewall at the same time.

There is room for improvement relating to third-party VPNs.

You can only have one tunnel in the whole infrastructure — one tunnel with one device. I cannot have multiple terminals running from each of the devices to the same third-party.

I have been dealing with Meraki MX for nearly five years.

Meraki MX is both scalable and stable.

The technical support is quite good — very fast.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took roughly two hours, max.

If you are a small scale company looking for an SD-Wan solution, plus UTM box-type combination, then Meraki is the best option — based on the price and the features available.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MX a rating of nine.

We use it for UTM devices.

We have roughly 200 users, using this solution.

We prefer UTM solutions.

As far as what needs to be improved — nothing really comes to mind. It does what we need it to do.

I have been using Meraki MX for more than five years.

Both the scalability and the scalability are great with Meraki MX.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment takes less than one day.

If you're thinking about implementing Meraki MX, make sure to plan it properly. Planning takes time which gives you the ability to make sure it's scaled properly, without too much complexity.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine — nothing is perfect.

Within our company, there are a lot of remote access users. We also have a couple of offices and some international users as well.

In general, Meraki MX is easy to work with. 

I have been using Meraki MX for two years.

Meraki MX is both scalable and stable.

I really didn't experience any areas of complexity. The most complex part of the initial setup was setting up a conference camera. We host a lot of international board meetings that require video calling. 

The pricing could always be improved — especially with the shape the economy is in at the moment.

I don't have much advice to offer — everybody has to do their due diligence.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MX a rating of eight.

We deploy this solution for our customers. We do the cloud and on-premises deployments, and we have all the versions.

It is very easy to use and manage. It is also very easy to scale.

In general, the SD-WAN feature needs to be improved. The load sharing and load balancing of the traffic should be improved. I have had some problems with these features in the past.

I have been using Meraki MX since 2016.

It has very good stability.

It is very scalable. We have all kinds of customers.

They have very good technical support. Cisco Meraki's support is incredible.

The initial setup can be complex. It usually depends on the scenario. The deployment usually takes half a day, but it again depends on the scenario.

It is a good global solution in terms of the price and features, but because we sell this solution in dollars, sometimes we don't get to sell this solution in Brazil because the dollar is very expensive. 

The price of every project is different. It varies depending upon the project, scenario, and client.

I would recommend this solution based on the use case. I would rate Meraki MX an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is a zero-touch deployment.

It has very good features; it's easy to use, configure, set up, and deploy.

Also, the support is very good.

While it's reasonably priced, it could always be lowered to compete with others.

In the next release, because the security is pretty basic, I think they could include additional security features.

We used this solution for a very small project.

Meraki MX is quite stable. We have not had any issues.

It's a scalable solution.

Cisco's technical support is good, they are very responsive.

It's easy to set up and configure.

It was a very small project and it only took four or five minutes to install.

Four or five switches can be deployed in a day.

We have a team of several engineers to deploy and maintain this solution.

The price is slightly increased, but reasonable.

It's a good solution. If they're looking for something that is easy to use, easy to deploy, and easy to support, maybe they should consider Meraki, given the product is very stable.

The features are good. 

The price point is one thing that we need to consider, but it's expected because good products come with slightly increased pricing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The application visibility, performance visibility, and the failover capability for VPN are excellent.

The security is not as strong as it could be. The lack of HTTPS encryption is a big challenge that I have with Meraki. Essentially, the Meraki device is blind to any threats that are encrypted, and currently, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 to 80% of all internet traffic is encrypted. In other words, you basically have a blind security guard watching the network.

I have been using Meraki MX for over five years.

We've had no issues with the scalability or the stability of this solution.

The price varies depending on the hardware platform as well as the type of license and whether you're adding security or not. 

If you're going to go with Meraki as your primary gateway, I'd recommend having a secondary security solution in your back pocket.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven.

We are using Meraki MX for Wi-Fi.

The most valuable feature is that we didn't have any problems with Meraki MX.  

Management can be improved in Meraki MX. 

We have been using Meraki MX for eight years.

Stability and scalability are good. We didn't have any issues. 

Our experience with technical support was fine. We don't have any problems at all.

The initial setup was very quick and straightforward.

The pricing is fine at the moment.

I would recommend Meraki MX. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. It can have better management. 

I used the MX80 as primary FW in a small Office with 50 users. The options provide even non-FW-specialist a way to manage and block certain aspects of internet usage.

The main purpose of the Meraki is to use Internet for Users. Not filter traffic for Servers. 

Together with other network gear you get an overall visibility into each client on the network. Thats is fantastic. Meraki offers free trails and you can get the entry level gear very cheap. The support model allows usage of the cloud management only if you have support. But then you get all features and updates.

We now use the small MX as a VPN tunnel in the small offices. The SDWAN feature is great as it connects to any point if one is not available. Setup is easy as bam. Check it out.

Everyone is able to look at the cloud management to find out problems and identify the source. You don't need a FW specialist any more. You can even outsource the maintenance and support via a support account and delegate access in networks, locations or even only one device.

The solution was cloud managed, so I could access it from anywhere and deploy it with zero configuration. No need to configure anything. Just send it to the location and connect with the internet. 

The event logging, alerting, and reporting features could use improvement. Especially the export of the log is difficult. There is an API to connect to, but I have not found it easy to extract something yet.

I have used this solution for 4 years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability. Once a device was just dead and dead replacement. Once we had to replace a device because of predicted failure. Both cases were handled well by the support. We had only next business day support.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability. High bandwidth will cost something. You might be better off using multiple streams with multiple providers.

I would rate technical support 10/10.

I previously used Cisco and I switched because of missing manageability.

I now use a central Sophos FW and this can be managed through the central AV and Protection Cloud Management if you use Sophos as AV client.

The initial setup was easy. Some features need more investigation (client VPN). SDWAN is great. Some more training on how to set something up would help like VLAN. Even if it is that easy to configure it, the basic concepts might be missing.

Other provider did not jump on Meraki as I would expect. Most of them do not support nor use Meraki. It is difficult to find support provider to help if there is a problem.

With many locations you will save a lot on traveling and deployment, as you don't need this any more. The costs inc. support is comparable with other vendors.

Compare total costs (setup and management), taking in mind that cloud features do more than just stop traffic on the edge: they identify both traffic and users.

Is it getting used to have support as a must. But realistically I would not use any other FW without support today.

We used Cisco products, we tested several other vendors too. Sophos is a close match in manageability and offer real FW features, but is more complex and needs more training.

Meraki is still best for an office FW. Simple categories, features, SDWAN. I would not use it for Web Server protection or Server to Server firewall so.

Be prepared for a new way of managing networks. Test it. See the webcast. The zero deployment is a killer feature. Network Products like switches and Wifi do the rest.