Juniper SRX Reviews

We had implemented two SRXs in high availability mode. They were used, generally, for firewall and NAT translation tables, for forwarding for services, and connecting branch offices. We have a constant internet connection, which is directly connected with the branch offices, in general. We didn't explicitly configure or use any specific SRX features regarding the filtering of URLs or something that a UTM could use, since Juniper has a more advanced configuration and, in general, a UI that's made for the customer.

The solution is mostly stable. 

We get technical support via the reseller, and they are very helpful. 

You can scale the solution. 

The solution works well for larger organizations. 

We've had some issues with the firmware. 

The solution is quite advanced. You need a lot of training to use it effectively.

When we bought the equipment, and we have more Juniper devices, not just SRX, they started to malfunction. I'm not sure why. All the devices that we bought were from the year 2018. We had the EX4600. Something was not working with this device. It was offline. We bought everything in twos so we could make a high availability with all of them. The current has malfunctioned, and all the warranties have also expired. We are, generally, expecting malfunctioning, maybe in the next few years. I was planning to switch the Juniper equipment with something else to avoid this.

It does not have a simple user interface. 

The warranty offered on the devices isn't long enough. it would be better if you could extend it out to five or eight years. Otherwise, you have to be very careful with the equipment. 

I'm not sure if Juniper SRX can filter emails or block viruses. I'm not familiar with these aspects as I haven't had that much experience using the SRX inside the UI. However, if they do not, it would be ideal if they did. I'm not sure if it can deflect any kind of DDoS attack. 

The one particular issue that I've seen on the SRX, is if you have SSH enabled and if there is a large number of SSH connections, when a brute force attack happens, the SRX, in general, tends to become unstable, or it resets by itself. That's one issue that's particularly making me angry, and I had to request the reseller to block the SSH permanently, or just to allow access, so only they can connect.

Juniper SRX was implemented in our company at the start of 2018.

While the solution has been running stable, one device has also malfunctioned. We had some issues with Juniper in general. It was regarding the firmware and some box, or something like that. We've needed to contact our reseller more frequently to fix the issues that are occurring when using the device.

Regarding stability, it's pretty much working in a stable way. I haven't had any issues regarding, let's say, speeds or connectivity or general day-to-day use, when users connected on the switches and accessing the internet, and so on. That said, sometimes with the devices, strange issues happen.

Regarding scalability, generally, it is simple, I would say, at least from my perspective. I wasn't the person that configured the devices, however. The reseller was. 

Before the Corona crisis, there were 250 users. Now we've got maybe 90 to 100 people.

We generally contact the reseller that sold us the device and also has a maintenance protocol. We have services on-demand when some issues arise and we need help.

The reseller was pretty good regarding ticket issues, management, or making modifications, even during the production time. They are really trusted people, and a trusted IT company, and they've expertly managed all the requirements that I've sent them or any other modification on the network that I wanted to have.

I've used Cyber and a Sophos UTM device. Juniper is, generally, more advanced. I haven't been able to get enough training to maintain the Juniper device.

The main reason we chose Juniper was the stability, and the number of concrete connections that users can make when, let's say, they going out to the internet, and accessing services over the internet. Also, regarding the network port-forwarding to internal servers, in services, the device that we had before was Cyberoam UTM, and it didn't quite handle the high load. I generally noticed that SRX can handle pretty high network loads when going in or out. It's proven itself to be stable in that regard.

The initial setup was generally handled by the reseller and they did the setup as described on the schematic and regarding core network configuration, high availability, security, firewalls, et cetera. It was, generally, out of the box when it was configured and set up from the ground up.

While the setup was planned in 2017, it was up and running in 2018. It took about six months or so.

We switched office buildings, the main office. The new office was built with this solution. Everything was migrated, including all the network devices, all the servers, all the ISP, internet connections, and so on. Everything was, generally, carefully planned when it was deployed.

Our reseller also handles the maintenance. Generally, that takes one or two people.

Our reseller partner handled the initial setup for the most part.

I can't speak to the licensing. It's not an aspect I handle directly. I can't say that there are extra costs involved beyond the licensing fee. 

We are currently using Juniper SRX, however, I was thinking about maybe changing the devices to FortiGate or a UTM device.

Lately I was thinking about simplifying. Maybe FortiGate might have something more user-friendly for the end-user or for the customer experience.

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

We are using the SRX Model 345. It's a physical device. It's not a virtual instance.

In general, I wouldn't recommend Juniper to, for example, a small business. I would maybe recommend it to a bigger company. We might have made a mistake taking Juniper. Maybe we should have used something more user-friendly.

I would recommend it to a company that has more than 250 people. Or maybe even over 300. For a smaller company, it's not financially, efficient in the long-term, in terms of subscriptions or maintenance costs and similar things. A company that uses high-grade enterprise equipment, should be really financially equipped to handle such things.

It's highly advanced, at least for me. I would really need some training to at least handle some basic things, or maintenance, or even Firmware upgrading or high availability configurations. It's too advanced for me. I would really need to have some kind of network specialist certificate to manage them.

I would be really worried about the warranty as a new user as well. You really need to keep the subscriptions up to date, or not to stop them. If you've stopped them, you also need to pay penalties for the years that the subscriptions weren't used. 

Regarding equipment, you really need to have them in twos, not one. You need to have high availability for all of them. The equipment tends to malfunction, specifically if there are any power issues inside the building, or if there isn't any generator or UPS underneath, and so on. The equipment really needs to be taken care of.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are using Juniper SRX for general protection. We are not using those next-generation features, we are using them as layer 4 protection only.

On the enterprise side, we are currently only using traditional firewalling and do not have extreme-level features, such as IPS or UTM. This is because the team overseeing this area has been handed over to us in the last few years.

When we were doing the migration from the CRBV to ERV ports, at that particular time, we were working on the Juniper SRX.

The IPS functionality of Juniper SRX is useful in the telecom industry.

In comparison to other enterprise-level firewalls, such as Cisco FTD, Cisco has improved significantly. In the past, I believed that Juniper SRX was superior, but after seeing the advancements in the FTD platform, Cisco has better functionality. I have not recently explored Juniper SRX's next-generation firewall capabilities as we only use basic firewall filtering in our enterprise network.

Cisco had a more organized deployment process for their IPS feature. They would put the IPS in sensing mode in the network for a certain period of time and then the firewall would recommend certain policies to the administrator based on the network activity during that time. On the other hand, when I was working with Juniper SRX in 2013, we had to coordinate with the end user to gather information, such as source and destination IP addresses, and then build templates using Juniper SRX's provided templates. Additionally, Cisco had a more useful functionality when it came to security visibility and monitoring, while Juniper's STRM was very good in the past but now it's not for our use case. We are using other team's solutions to monitor our firewalls.

I have been using Juniper SRX for approximately 10 years.

From a hardware stability point of view, Huawei is a much better solution.

The stability of Juniper SRX is good, but there have been instances where it did not perform well. However, when compared to another vendor, such as Huawei, it has been deployed in our backbone for many years without any issues. This does not mean that Huawei is better than Juniper, in terms of functionality, Juniper is superior.

We have approximately 2,000 to 3,000 users using this solution in the enterprise.

If the Juniper SRX is deployed in a location where there is not enough room for growth or where there is a high traffic volume, such as when replicating data between two data centers, we may have to bypass the firewall to avoid capacity challenges. In general, the capacity is sufficient when initially deployed. However, if there is a forecasted change in the network usage, such as a customer's increased usage, we may have to plan for a swap or replacement of equipment that is near its end-of-support or end-of-life.

I rate the scalability of Juniper SRX a seven out of ten.

We have previously used other solutions, such as Cisco.

I am not sure of the exact reason we switched as I was not involved in the decision-making process at that time. However, I know that the IT backbone network was transitioning from a Cisco or legacy network to an MPLS network. The Juniper SRX solution was already in the deployment phase when I joined, with phases one to four already completed and it was in phase seven. The last phase, security, was yet to be deployed in the network. It was likely pre-decided before I joined and it could have been due to the MPLS deployment and migration from legacy. It is possible that they had won an RFP and based on that they were part of the network. The choice to change could have been based on functionalities or other factors, but it was a competition between different vendors to deploy the IP backbone.

The initial setup of Juniper SRX was simple. It took approximately one to two months to fully deploy.

The first step for the deployment was to share the requirements with the local team. Based on this, they proposed firewalls with sessions, net, and IPsec throughput. After deciding on the firewall, we went through the ordering process, which took longer than usual due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Once the firewall was delivered, it took about a month or two to install it on site, this included doing some joint ventures and having a partner from Juniper come and install the firewall in the rack and power it up. The initial integration took approximately three or four working days. After that, we started the migration process, which took an additional two-plus months.

We had help from the vendor for the implementation of the solution. We used one to two people for the process.

When we are in the deployment phase, we contact Juniper and they provide a budget-free code for our budgetary work.

Juniper mentioned that right now it does not support the Apstra fabric which we currently have in the network. They said that in the next version, there will be support for Juniper SRX. We might have to upgrade the firewall.

We do preventative maintenance on the devices.

I didn't explore the next-generation side of the Juniper SRX to recommend it, but I would recommend Palo Alto and Fortinet solutions.

I rate Juniper SRX a six out of ten.

I work with firewalls. We have a team to manage them. We also have services that are related to hosting and we provide solutions related, and we set up everything.

We manage their connections remotely.

Every firewall has different use cases. Juniper is zone-based and the architecture matters. It offers convenience for the users to have remote access and ensures a secure and safe authentication.

When compared to Palo Alto, Juniper is a better choice when it comes to the enterprise network and connectivity.

Juniper SRX is pretty fast to configure and make it work.

Once it is configured, it's fine, which is not the case with other firewalls.

Juniper is user-friendly. It works perfectly well.

Upgrades are available.

Juniper SRX has a roll-back feature which is very interesting. As no one is perfect and mistakes do happen, we can roll it back to the previous configuration.

This solution can handle a lot. It's manageable when you know the parameters, the features, and the number of policies of your firewall.

The user interface is something that Juniper needs to improve. 

We have used many models of Juniper SRX. Based on the scale and the environment of the customer, we choose what is best for them.

Most of what we use are between the SRX300 and SRX345. These are the most commonly used series.

Simple, mid-scale establishments can use these models.

It is more or less stable. I prefer it for its stability as a firewall.

We are not a large team, we have 20 members in our company.

It's a scalable solution.

The support could be somewhat improved with Juniper.

We have also had firewalls from Palo Alto as well as FortiGate. I prefer Palo Alto, comparatively, it is better.

We find that the technical support with FortiGate is very slow. We are not able to get the proper help in spite of having the AMC add-on.

It is not at all complex. It's easy. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The maintenance requirements are based on the customer's agreement and whether it is to manage the firewall and maintain it.

It is best suited to an enterprise-level, as the mid-range companies may find that the cost is not affordable.

Previously, we had an implementation plan for a client. We verified the different types of firewalls and the support and how it works. We evaluated Cisco, Juniper, and FortiGate.

From the previous recommendation, we saw all of the technical aspects of the different firewalls. Based on that information, we were able to clarify and come to a conclusion and chose the firewall that was best suited to the client's needs.

Recently, because of the price, we have moved to Juniper.

Most of the AMCs are costly.

We choose our solution based on many reasons. One is the cost, which is the primary reason, and the second is the performance. Performance in this context includes how it loads, and how it handles. Based on these parameters, we choose the firewalls.

At this time, we are not using cloud-based features. It is something we anticipate in the future. We are not using Juniper cloud-based. When you have a setup at an architecture level, they will not have drastic changes until, or unless they are financially stable and they want a higher level of architecture to be implemented.

The change will not happen suddenly, even if you have an enterprise core application it won't be done in a different way. There will be a roadmap done. We also have the SSG firewalls.

There is a lot of work in the pipeline, it might take more time to change the firewalls that need upgrading.

When we use so many products, we have to follow the hierarchy. We don't commonly work in a UI environment.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It is good, and it is faster and easier to maintain. The price is not bad and when compared with Cisco, I find that Juniper is better. It's a good product for enterprise companies. 

We have a custom-built model that makes it very simple to migrate.

I would rate Juniper SRX an eight out of ten.

We're using it as a primary firewall and UTM for the main lines coming into our offices and also for connecting our sub-offices around the world.

Previously, we had different routers for each of the incoming lines to the office, and we had other firewalls on the backend to manage them. Now, we have changed all of these, and we have all the lines coming into one single solution, which is SRX. We manage everything very easily from one single interface. Previously, we used to have 10 different devices to do that. Now, we have only one.

We like the fact that we can easily combine multiple internet links to the office and use them like one link.

It is very fast and very easy to maintain. Another nice part of it is that you can easily extract the logs and move them over to a security operations center.

Its logging is very good, but we would like to have an easier way of creating more reports. We would like to be able to manipulate the reports or manage the way the reports are coming out.

In terms of new features, we are using almost all of the features that it has, and there is nothing specific that it is lacking.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is very stable.

It is scalable. We haven't used the scalability up till now, but we know that we can extend it.

We have 150 users here, and then we have around 30 to 40 users in different countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Norway. They're using some parts of it. They are using some smaller units to connect to the main office.

We don't have any plans to increase its usage as of now. Any expansion would be in terms of getting new offices around the world. We may install more of those smaller ones, but for the time being, as far as I know, we will not expand it in the office because it is already performing as it should. It actually did a very good job when we were working remotely because it allows us to connect to the office very easily and work remotely.

They have been pretty good. In some cases, they took a little bit of time to give a response for the cases we were facing. However, in most of the cases, they were very fast in responding and providing full resolution to the cases we faced.

We had different routers for each of the incoming lines to the office, and we had other firewalls on the backend to manage them. We switched because it was too difficult to manage multiple solutions for each of those lines. We wanted to have one single place where we could manage everything. We also didn't want to have some people going out from one internet line and some from another internet line. We wanted to combine all those lines together and make them work as one, and that's what we achieved with SRX.

We were not so much involved in the setup because we had a security company to do that for us. It took us about two months.

We had a security company for its implementation. Our experience with them was very good.

For its maintenance, we have our IT department. There are three people for managing the maintenance of it. 

We evaluated many other options. We checked out Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Check Point.

I would advise others to do good planning in the beginning because that helps a lot in having a very little downtime. It took us two months to implement it, which might seem very long, but we had zero downtime. Nobody noticed anything during the switch. It was the best way to implement it. This is the most important part. When you are trying to do such changes in the organization, it is very important that you do it by using the right resources and from the right perspective.

I would rate Juniper SRX a 10 out of 10.

We primarily use Juniper SRX for two functions: site-to-site VPN and VPN for Easy Connect. The VPN provides security for remote work. We also use it for a firewall.

One of Juniper SRX's most valuable features is the site-to-site VPN. 

I would like to have a better web UI for administration. Juniper could simplify the web UI and make it more compatible with mobile devices. In particular, I'm thinking about our remote offices, where we don't have dedicated IT personnel. Let's say someone from the office staff was working via smartphone. If the web UI were more compatible with mobile devices, the administration could manage IT support from a team that is not in their location. It would make it simpler for small companies to deploy these devices. I also think the documentation is lacking.

I've been using Juniper SRX for seven years.

In terms of stability, I would rate SRX nine out of 10. For performance, we're usually satisfied, so about eight of 10.

This model of SRX we use is not a scalable solution. It's near its maximum capacity for encryption, traffic, and features.

Juniper support was great. When we reported a critical issue, they responded with recommended fixes within four hours.

Regarding customer service, we prefer working with a company that lets us directly purchase their solutions worldwide using something like an internet store, so we don't have to go through partners or dealers. We currently deliver such solutions in many countries, and each country has its local vendor. 

Sometimes we can't rely on this delivery method because we haven't tried it yet in these countries, so it's not reliable to open new offices in foreign countries due to some restrictions, regulations, and price administration for networks. This is a problem. So it would be great if Juniper could deliver equipment that we purchase directly on some internet shop instead of using a local dealer or service center.

Deploying SRX was straightforward because our environment was ready for it. We used our own IT team and deployment took about two weeks. It was a normal step-by-step process. As for maintenance, SRX usually requires software updates and nothing more. We've installed it in a suitable environment in the server room, so it doesn't require a lot of additional maintenance.

I'm not sure we are satisfied fully with the pricetag of Juniper SRX, but we understand why the dealer prices it this way. Still, we are not satisfied when we try to get prices for competitor products. Sometimes, it can be tense like this.

When you consider performance, price, and features, maybe Juniper is not so cost-effective compared to other solutions like MikroTik. On the one hand, MikroTik might have better performance and much more features than Juniper. However, Juniper is more reliable and has different approval, certifications, and standard capability features. MikroTik does a lot of the same functions but doesn't have the same certifications. MikroTik is less expensive. The device price of MikroTik is $200 versus $6,000 with SRX. In the end, we chose SRX because it was on a list of solutions approved by our remote parties. One of our customers needed to have this type of VPN to work with our company.

I rate Juniper SRX eight out of 10. I recommend it. There are two vendors — Juniper and Cisco— that we recommend for the production environment of any kind of build.

We use the solution for protection and security. We primarily use the solution for an internal firewall.

If you require any particular rule that needs to be modified, any particular rule that needs to be fine-tuned, the solution will give you all the details regarding how to fine-tune the policy, including the destination, IP, et cetera. You can easily fine-tune whatever you need to in Juniper. It's easy to implement and meets our patience threshold. 

The dashboard is very helpful. It's extremely useful in terms of putting the necessary policies in place.

I handle the operation part. I'm just putting policies, et cetera, on Juniper. For tasks such as those, it is very easy and it is a comfortable, straightforward process.

The solution has proven to be quite stable.

Technical support has been quite helpful.

I've noticed that the management interface could use some updates and upgrades.

The dashboard can be updated. 

The reporting could be more robust and in-depth.

I've looked into the Check Point firewall a bit and I've found that its anti-spoofing is a good feature. Juniper should consider adding that as a feature.

I've only just begun to really use the product. I only have one year of experience so far. It's still new to me. Therefore, it's hard to make any notes on any features or improvements, as I'm still familiarizing myself with everything. I need time to compare it to other firewalls, and I have not gone through the process of doing that just yet. I need more time.

I've been dealing with the solution for about one year. It hasn't been that long. 

It is really stable. I've seen Juniper work well in my other companies as well. It is very good, in terms of stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is reliable.

Overall, the scalability is very good. A company should have no trouble with scaling if it would like to do so.

We have about 2,000 users currently. They cover various roles in our organization. It's not just used by a specific team.

The technical support on offer is very good. Whenever I would have some issues, they have responded on time and they have really good knowledge of the product. We've been quite satisfied overall.

We use a variety of solutions, including Cisco and Check Point.

I did not handle the initial implementation. That was handled by someone else. Therefore, I can't really share any insights on the process. I do not know if it was easy or difficult, or how long it really took to deploy.

I do not handle the licensing arrangements. That's handled by management. Therefore, I can't speak to how much it costs the organization or how often we pay a licensing fee.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

In general, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine. We've been quite satisfied with its capabilities so far. 

I'd recommend the solution, however, it really depends on what an organization needs. There are various factors, like pricing, for example, that should be taken into account when looking at solutions.

We are a financial institution and we use Juniper SRX routers to support our credit team, as well as our branch network. I am part of the IT department.

The Juniper router has a firewall built-in, which is a nice security enhancement for our organization. It adds a bit more value.

The support is very good.

The range of devices should be expanded to include those suitable for a small implementation. Juniper does not have any lower-priced SRX models, useful perhaps for a single ATM or a single bank branch. Having such a model at a reasonable price would be good.

In the time that we have used Juniper, we have not seen them improve their product line. If you look at Cisco, they have all kinds of network products. They have routers, switches, and firewalls. But with Juniper, they are not coming up with different kinds of products. They should be including more firewalls and other products. This is an area that Juniper should improve in general.

In Bangladesh, there is a very limited number of partners. The problem with this is that there is a monopoly, and I think that they should end this by increasing the number of local partners.

We have been working with Juniper SRX routers for more than five years.

Juniper SRX is a stable product.

This is a scalable router. In our organization, there are almost 3,000 people using the Juniper product. They have varied roles.

We plan to increase our use of Juniper products in the future, although it depends on input from management.

The technical support is quite good.

Currently, I am also using a Cisco product. The split between Cisco and Juniper devices is approximately 50/50.

Compared to Cisco, the price for Juniper SRX routers is very reasonable. The reason that we are switching to Juniper is because of the cost.

The initial setup is easy.

As we have been using this product for quite a long time, we are used to it and our resources have become very skilled with Juniper devices. The deployment does not take very long.

Our in-house network team is responsible for deployment.

There are six people in our network team. They are network administrators.

Juniper products provide a good return on investment.

This is a cost-effective solution because the price is very reasonable, and some of the features are available at no extra cost. That's the beauty of Juniper.

We have a perpetual license, which comes with the device. Once we purchase it, we can continue the service for three years. When the three-year warranty expires, we have to sign a new agreement with the OEM.

We are looking to gain some experience in using Mikrotik routers and switches.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Juniper is to enroll in the training that they have available. Train first, then deploy. That will make it much easier.

Overall, I think that this is quite a good product. However, they need to expand their range of device offerings.

I would rate Juniper SRX a seven out of ten.

We use Juniper SRX firewalls and site-to-site VPN connectivity.

Overall, in terms of uptime, they are very stable and reliable, which has benefited our organization.

The command line in Juniper SRX is extremely powerful, in my opinion. It's one of the best command lines I've used in networking products.

Both the web management and the graphical user interface are inadequate and should be improved. It's one of those situations. When it comes to Juniper, I would never use the GUI, instead, I would only use the command line.

I would like to see an improved user interface, and some kind of SD-WAN solution included, or perhaps a simpler way of configuring redundant links, such as WAN links.

I have been using Juniper SRX for 10 years.

We're working with the SRX240 and 210 models.

Juniper SRX is a very stable solution.

It should scale well, in my opinion. We are not a large company, but I don't anticipate any problems with Juniper SRX scalability.

We have approximately 300 employees, whose roles are in typical sales, accounting, operations, and transportation.

I'm not sure about increasing, but we do have other Juniper products, such as switches, that we would use.

Based on my experience with technical support, I would rate them a four out of five.

Positive

We have used other solutions. We decided to change to Juniper for something a little different. We have used some open-source firewalls in the past, and we wanted something a little more robust and fully supported in a real business class environment.

Coming from other vendors, the initial learning curve was a little steep. However, I would say that the actual setup was not that difficult.

I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.

I would recommend two people with networking knowledge, particularly in Juniper SRX, are enough to have it managed and supported.

One person could do it, but it helps to have a backup.

It only took a few weeks for them to all be deployed. It was really just a matter of timing and having a window for each location to have a little downtime to make the transition.

The deployment was completed in-house.

I would say that there has been a return on investment with Simply having the dependability, uptime, and additional security features.

Juniper SRX is reasonably priced.

We evaluated other products before choosing Juniper.

Other products had a more limited feature set, in my opinion. For some of the others, it was just the price. Juniper had a reasonable price and other reliable sources highly recommend it.

I believe that knowing exactly what you want to do is beneficial. There's a lot. It's a very flexible platform, and there's usually more than one way to accomplish your goals. Planning ahead of time is definitely beneficial. If you don't have a lot of experience, I'd recommend working with a partner if at all possible.

I would rate Juniper SRX an eight out of ten.