We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and SonicWall NSa based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Meraki MX has a slight edge in this comparison. Unlike SonicWall NSa, its users report a proven ROI.
"To me, the analytics feature is one of the most valuable in Meraki MX. I also find that it has good usability as it's cloud-based. Another valuable feature of Meraki MX is that it's simple to use and it's user-friendly."
"I think cloud management is key. The cloud management and support are the two things that make the product great."
"MX is easy to manage, configure and install."
"Easy to deploy with a simple configuration."
"What I like best about Meraki MX is that it's easy to deploy remotely. The product works. It has automatic updates. I also like that Meraki MX is a brilliant device. You turn it on, stick the key in there, activate it, and then you're done. Meraki MX does what my customers need at the end of the day, so I also like that."
"Its ease of configuration and management is very useful for us and for other companies that don't have an onsite IT person. It is easy to configure and easy to manage. It is easy to configure the VPN with the Auto VPN feature."
"Dual WAN connections are greatly simplified and point-to-point VPNs automatically connect regardless of what WAN connection is active."
"Point-to-point VPNs can dynamically follow IP changes with no need for static IPs."
"SD-WAN is a good feature."
"I like that SonicWall NSa is a stable product. It's also a scalable product."
"We can do the hosting and security all under one box. The UTM is a good feature."
"SonicWall NSa's most valuable features are the ease of configuration and the GUI."
"Overall SonicWall NSa is a good solution for our use case."
"They offer good antivirus solutions."
"For me, the most valuable feature of SonicWall NSa is the UTM."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the GUI pre-filtering and the ATP (advanced threat protection)."
"They're very complacent and I find the rule set to be a little arcane."
"An area for improvement in Meraki MX is that it needs some provision, as supplying the unit through Cisco can be tedious at times, but as far as the product itself and its offerings, Meraki MX is five-star all the way."
"We had minor issues with Meraki MX. We had a couple of RMAs, so that could be an area for improvement, but in terms of how the RMAs went, the turnaround time and getting those back into redeployment were quick. Another area for improvement in Meraki MX is that when you're scaling for multiple locations, you need to use the same model, but the model you'd need is only available for a short time. The specific model you require could be out of stock, or Meraki isn't making that model anymore, so Meraki should improve that."
"Meraki tech support staff have a lot more visibility into your network than you do, which is frustrating at times. I understand the approach is to keep the dashboard easier to understand. This will frustrate more advanced users at times."
"It is very expensive."
"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."
"We have been having a problem with the VPN. When the energy goes down and is back again, the VPN link doesn't get established. We have to manually turn off the modems and other pieces of equipment and manually establish the VPN. It has been around one month since we have been having this problem, and we don't have enough support from Meraki to solve the problem."
"Meraki has some hidden features and information that is only privy to their engineers. If that information became available to us, then it would improve our ease of management, and we would be able to make certain adjustments instead of having to go to them."
"The reporting and monitoring are a bit complex and should be easier in SonicWall NSa because other firewalls I have experienced have been more simple, such as Palo Alto. We are able to receive a clear view of our network. As a general user with little experience, it would be difficult for them to handle."
"When it comes to security I think all of the features are currently open to improvement."
"The user interface could be better."
"In terms of improvement, features like App Control do not work properly"
"An area for improvement would be SonicWall NSa's integration with antiviruses."
"Overall, Im satisfied with SonicWall NSa, but it would be better if they could add a small terminal to each device. This would help me deal with certain issues by running a small bot onto any PC."
"The dynamics needs to be improved. The solution is not very compatible compared to the market products."
"Competitors provide SSL encryption licenses for free, whereas SonicWall only provides two licenses by default, but you have to pay for the rest of the licenses."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 9 reviews while SonicWall NSa is ranked 15th in Firewalls with 33 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.8, while SonicWall NSa is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Provides good visibility, easy to configure and manage, and good for small businesses". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall NSa writes "Easy to scale advanced threat protection solution with knowledgeable technical support, but has occasional bugs". Meraki MX is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas SonicWall NSa is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, SonicWall TZ, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Meraki MX vs. SonicWall NSa report.
We monitor all Unified Threat Management (UTM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.