Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

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.

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.

As a value-added reseller, we resell Juniper hardware to our clients. Its use cases are related to the standard network architecture. It is a part of the fabric that Juniper uses for their switching.

It is a part of the infrastructure when we're selling Juniper. That's what clients are familiar with and that's what they rely on. 

It does have its nuances in terms of deployment. There are always areas to make something easier or more intuitive or make the system auto-negotiate more with existing hardware.

I have been using this solution since it got launched. It has been around five years or so.

For the most part, it is no more difficult than anything else that's out there right now.

Most of the feedback that I've got from my clients related to Juniper's support is that their support is okay. It is not spectacular. It is just okay.

It is easy. It is pretty much plug-and-play. This is why people like Juniper.

Its price is comparable to the competition.

I would advise definitely taking some training if you're not really familiar with the interface or the GUI. Brush up on it before you dig into it because a lot of people know Aruba or Cisco, but you need to be familiar with it. Don't just buy it because you read some marketing material on it. You actually need to know how to deploy it.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

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.

Our main use case for Juniper SRX is for gateway level protection for all internet users and UTM and to control the user when accessing websites, applications and non-relevant sites.

Our main purpose for using the Juniper security solution is because we are also using Cisco routers, switches etc.. and we wanted unity in the OEM products so that we can maintain all the products in NMS.

The features that I have found valuable are the ones for the main purpose we are using Juniper - its firewall to protect our network for our internet access.

In terms of what could be improved, J-Web, Juniper Web, is sometimes not working great when users are increasing their internet use. Additionally, they need to improve the GUI, graphical user interface, and the firewall management needs to improve. Their CLI is good, but sometimes the GUI is very slow.

Also, the UTM, Unified Threat Management, feature needs to be improved.

We have been using Juniper SRX since January 2018.

Juniper SRX is stable. Stability is okay.

Juniper SRX has scalability. Its current site has 1500 users and we can upgrade to 2 K users.

Right now, we have around 500 - 600 total users, but I think some sections are still under deployment, so all the users are around the 1700 - 1800 range.

We connected with tech support seven or eight months ago. We got good support and a good response.

The initial setup is complex. It takes one week's time for deployment because we are also integrated with Active Directory and Radius Contactless.

We did it with our own team.

Before choosing Juniper, we compared it with two other solutions, but they were banned because they were Chinese products.

I suppose Juniper is a good solution for the railway and metro environment. These projects are very handy and work in the relevant environmental condition, because in this environment we have different climatic conditions. Suppose we require -5 to 55, -5 to 85 compression, some EMCMI specifications, such as EN501214 - Juniper is a good solution in the railway and metro environment, anywhere worldwide and domestic. It is relevant anywhere.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Juniper SRX an eight.

We are using 300 series and 1500 series models.

It is a complete security bundle. The cloud-based Sky Advanced Threat Prevention feature is very valuable.

I am 100% satisfied with the performance of the Juniper firewall. It has a very good throughput. It works very fine. We use our firewall as a site-to-site VPN or Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN). In both cases, it has a very good and optimum performance.

Their service support is very good in India. I get really good support from the Juniper team.

It must be 5G ready. The 5G network is rolling out soon in India, and Juniper must upgrade their firewall slot to the 5G network, or they must manufacture a 5G dongle card for the Juniper firewall. I want Juniper to upgrade their dongle from 4G to 5G. 

Presently, they have an expansion slot in the SRX 322 series and higher firewalls. In that expansion slot, they can put a 4G mobility SIM card so that whenever our primary link is down, it will automatically connect through this GSM network and form a tunnel.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is 100% stable. They have a common operating system for firewalls, routers, and LAN switches.

Their technical support is excellent. As compared to any other company, Juniper has better support in India. We have a very good understanding, and I get good support from them.

I have worked with Sophos and SonicWall. As far as the real packet forwarding internet mix is concerned, Juniper is far better than SonicWall, FortiGate, Sophos, and Cisco.

The setup of any firewall is always complex because we have to customize features according to customer requirements.

Its price is reasonable. In India, most of the products have a similar price. There is only a 5% to 10% variation in the price of different brands.

I would recommend this solution to others. They can blindly go with Juniper. Juniper has very good after-sales support. Their technical team is very aggressive in support, and they give very good support to the customers.

I plan to keep using this solution. Currently, there is no plan to switch from Juniper to any other brand. I am 100% satisfied with Juniper. They provide a very good service to my customers. I don't have any concerns about after-sales support with Juniper.

I would rate Juniper SRX a ten out of ten.

We use the solution as a device to meet NTLS connections, a firewall, and we are thinking about using it for SD-WAN.

The firewall features and the routing capability are the most valuable. The interface is straightforward and we have not had any problems with integration.

Their models for service providers could improve. We are an MSP, we resell services and I think the company could have a better program for service providers because our needs are different from our regular customer that is buying it for.

More recently we started using the GUI interface and that looks pretty shameful and needs improvement.

Juniper has a different product line that has artificial intelligence capabilities. In the future, we would like to see that extended to the SRX line.

I have been using the solution for approximately two years.

We have found the solution to be very stable. We have had literally little to no hardware or device failures in the field and have not had any customer complaints. In the years we have been using the solution we have not had any issues using it.

The scalability is good. The solution is best for small to medium size businesses.

We had to use the support in a couple of instances. When we have used the support, it was good. They were responsive and able to resolve our issues. There is also some community support online that I have found to be helpful.

The installation difficulty depends on the setup. Initially, when we started using the solution, we were using the command line interface and it took us a while to learn the commands, eventually, it becomes straightforward. 

The full deployment took us approximately one month. We typically need only one person for deployment, and we have a service operation center that manages the devices and provides the maintenance.

The price could improve, it is a bit expensive. Our licensing cost is approximately $120.00 USD annually. There are some extra fees, for example, the GUI has an orchestrator that has its own fees. 

Some of our clients have also seen similar solutions from our competitors such as Cisco and Fortinet. I think technically they are all very good products. However, for us we were looking for a product that was stable and had good support, this is the reason we chose Juniper. We package Juniper as part of our managed service to our customers.

My advice would be, generally, it is a good product with helpful support. The one thing we would like to see changes in is the pricing could be better.

I rate Juniper SRX an eight out of ten.

We are a solution provider and we work closely with our clients to identify their requirements, and then we suggest a solution. Once they accept it, we implement it. The Juniper SRX is one of the models that our clients have chosen.

It is primarily used as a firewall.

The most valuable feature is robustness.

The training videos that are available need to be improved, and made more educative. This will help users to become more familiar with the product.

I have been using Juniper SRX for the past four years.

We had suggested an HA-based environment, or architecture in the majority of places that we have implemented Juniper. In these cases, it has been very stable. There have been other products that we couldn't upgrade to the latest format, but Juniper could always be upgraded. It always worked and never crashed.

I am not very sure about scalability, but I believe that we were able to migrate a few of the lower models to the high-end models and it worked perfectly well. There was no problem.

They have technical support over the phone as well as the online ticketing system and that has worked out pretty well. They have been able to solve problems for us, although I do not know all of the details because we direct our clients to them. When our clients get in touch with customer support to resolve their issues, they share the information with us later.

I sell other products from vendors such as F5, and they have a good training facility online. Juniper is behind in terms of video training that they have available.

The initial setup is not very easy. We had faced problems in the GUI, so we had to switch back to the CLI to get things done. While using the GUI, it was pretty easy and we could accomplish things by just clicking. However, for some reason, there were errors and we had to complete it using the CLI. I have no idea why this was the case, but we finally achieved what we wanted.

Our team implements this product for our clients.

This is an expensive product. The buying power of companies in my region is such that perhaps 5% of them are pretty good. The majority of them are very bad in terms of buying power, so they look at the cost of these solutions and Juniper is not able to match the price.

There are several options that we offer for our clients. These include Pala Alto, Cisco, Dell, SonicWall, F5, and FireEye. Some of our clients choosing Juniper, whereas others choose a solution from another vendor. The majority of our clients choose Cisco or FireEye.

Most of the companies that we deal with have a committee that takes care of purchases. We sit with the committee and they iterate through the various benefits of the solutions, after which the purchase is finalized. We are not biassed toward any particular product. We explain everything to our clients, show them the prices, and they come back to say what product they have chosen.

In summary, this is a good product, although it is a little bit expensive and the training could be improved. Training is something that is very important, and we were not able to get much information. For example, we couldn't get the best-recommended practices, which is something that we look at when implementing solutions. We were able to get a few of them, although not all of them have been updated. Consequently, we have a shortage of information about Juniper. Nonetheless, customer support has been able to help us in a big way.

Overall, things have been a bit slow, but we have been able to catch up.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The Juniper SRX is our edge firewall.

We have three in total. Two of them are set up in an HA pair, and the other is standalone in another city.

This product has definitely not improved the way our organization functions.

I am familiar with Cisco products and when we purchased the Juniper units, they told us that if you know Cisco IOS then Juniper SRX is really easy. It isn't. It would be like saying that if you know English, then Chinese is really easy. The reality is that it's completely different. There's no commonality and the philosophies are different. Everything is different.

We purchased it for the basic firewall features but added UTM a little bit later.

The reliability needs to be improved. We purchased three devices and all three have been replaced under RMA. We've had other problems where they have needed to be rebooted.

A couple of times I've run into the problems where they have to integrate with other systems. The Juniper support really doesn't have a clue about other systems. They know Juniper and if everything is Juniper then it's great. However, we have Windows RADIUS Servers and I need Juniper-specific settings for them. Unfortunately, they're having a real hard time telling me what those should be, and they keep referring back to it being Microsoft, which they don't support. When they say that I need to speak with Microsoft, I remind them that these are things that are defined in the Juniper configurations that I need to set up. They seem to forget that not everybody is exclusively Juniper.

We bought three Juniper SRX345s about four years ago, and we are still using them today.

We have had glitches that necessitating rebooting the device. For example, a couple of times, they just stop routing on certain VLANs, and one time, it was our server VLANs, so our DNS was down and no one could get to anything. People thought that our internet connection down but actually, it was the DNS and the routing to it had been stopped.

We're a relatively small organization so we didn't scale it.

All of the people in the organization are protected by the devices.

I have used technical support quite a bit, and they are really good. I would rate them an eight out of ten. There is almost always room for improvement.

Prior to the Juniper SRX devices, we had some Cisco ASAs. They were reaching end-of-life so we had to replace them.

At the time we were shopping, Cisco was behind in their technologies. Had they kept up with the technology and provided a comparable device at a competitive price, we would have stayed with Cisco.

We hired a contractor to set up the units.

The IT manager and I, being the network admin, are the only ones who touch it. We try to keep the software updated on all of our devices.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this product is to make sure that they fully understand Junos OS. Over the past four years, I have become moderately proficient with Juniper SRX. There still a lot to learn but I also have contractors that I can get assistance from if needed. For example, currently, I'm trying to set up RADIUS and I'm having some problems with it.

In summary, I think that their design philosophy is really good, but the execution leaves a bit to be desired.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

The GUI of the solution is quite good. It's also very different from other solutions. On others, if you need to configure anything, you can do it all from the default gateway. Cisco, for example, has a bit of a more difficult process. Juniper's GUI is easier and it makes configuration easier.

Troubleshooting with the solution is quite easy. If you compare the process to, for example, Fortigate, Juniper is much easier.

The speed of the solution is very good.

The initial setup is very easy.

While the GUI is pretty good on the Juniper side, there can still be tweaks made to it that will make it even better.

I've been using the solution for two years or so.

The stability has been good so far. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It's not a solution that crashes a lot of freezes up. We find it very reliable.

The scalability potential depends on the customer. Some customers are working only on the edge with smaller systems and the other environment is connected to Cisco switches. Some clients mix up switches and use HP or Cisco. Some like ASA, however, that's more expensive. Many go with SRX as an affordable option. 

I have reached out to Juniper tech support a couple of times. I recall the experience being good. I got the answers I needed. I've used technical support from Sophos and Cisco in the past, and in comparison, I find Juniper to be quite good. I'd say we are satisfied with the level of support provided. 

I've used Cisco and Fortigate solutions, among others, in the past as well. I find Juniper easier to use from a GUI aspect. Cisco is better from a CLI perspective.

We did not find the initial setup to be complex. The implementation was straightforward and simple. It didn't really give us any trouble.

The pricing of the product is pretty good. It's less than Cisco, which can be expensive for some organizations.

Our client is a medium, small branch company. When they purchased this firewall, they understood that they could use it for a couple of years.

I have a client that works with Juniper 4200 and 4300 and they find the solution to be very user-friendly.

Overall, I would recommend the solution as it is easy to use and has a pretty good GUI. Customers really seem to like it.

In general, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight.

For different customers, we use the product in different ways. In some cases, it is going to be an on-premises solution. In some cases, it is going to be a cloud-integrated solution. That is one of the best things about Juniper. We can use a single box and have the same unified policy structure if it is off the cloud or it is on-premises.  

Our primary use case is basically to use it like you would any other firewall. I do not call this a firewall anymore because it has functionality beyond what we traditionally think of as a firewall. Those days are gone where a firewall does just one thing. Today most of the firewall products are station firewalls. You have various options in each firewall station. In terms of comparison, you can compare Juniper with Cisco, with Fortinet, with Palo Alto and other leading products. It depends on what exactly you are planning to have it do.  

The most valuable feature for me over-all is that Juniper is simplified and can still do everything that is necessary to be effective. 

On the SRX box, it has what I call a one model concept for security. I work especially with hybrid environments. With an SRX we have a single management dashboard. We can manage the internal framework easily with the centralized management component. You can work with the threat prevention, you can work with the integration, you can work with traffic management. Another good part about SRX is that you have opportunities for automation. Another thing that is very good is that all the operating systems for all Juniper boxes are the same. You do not work on different operating systems using different boxes. 

It does user validation automatically and has automated threat detection and defense. It does threat analytics, which is integrated. So as a single box, it does not just address security, it does not just handle switching, it does not just work as a firewall. It addresses everything.  

I have not given a lot of thought as to what needs to be improved because so much of technology and capabilities are expanding.  

Probably Juniper could come up with their own dedicated endpoint security. Today they have an integration with Sophos. If you really look at what SRX has as far as antivirus capability, it is really only the integration with Sophos. Sophos is good, I am not saying Sophos is a bad solution. But Juniper having their own antivirus solution may be a batter idea to make it a stand-alone product.  

If you look at Check Point. They have a lot of experience in the area of security which is integrated with their product. In comparison, Juniper could start developing its own strong capabilities with antivirus and have its own security which may even surpass relying on Sophos. Sophos could improve more but it is definitely a wonderful architecture.  

I have around 22 years of experience with various similar products. My experience for the last 10 years has been on Juniper. I have worked on Cisco, on Foundry, and on Xstream. And you can make comparisons with products like Fortinet and Palo Alto next-generation firewalls.  

I would rate stability on a scale of one to ten. If ten is best, I would rate a nine-point-five. I would not rate anything a ten in this industry in any case because nothing is perfect and there is always room for improvement. It is very robust. Because the product is robust and very agile that carries over well into the potential for reliability.  

When it comes to scalability, basically Juniper is modular. The SRX architecture is very important. Say I am a small-time customer with 50 people in my company and I deploy on the SRX 300 Series. If my business grows exponentially and I now have 500 people in the company. My traffic has boosted significantly — say about ten times what it was. I do not have to really worry. Within one hour, I can just switch and get a new SRX box in place. Let's say I go with the 500 Series or the 4000 Series. This is my new capacity.

The change over is so simple, because the architecture is common. Whether you talk about SRX 300 or you talk about the service provider architecture, it is the same thing except for the capability to expand and handle the volume. That is very important from a technical perspective, which normally you only need one tech person to deploy.  

For mid-sized companies or even large-sized companies, you have a lot of clients from SRX 300 to SRX 5000 Series and the product line covers all the options. This is from a very basic server-level SRX box to the Next-Generation Firewall and advanced threat mitigation.  

But one thing that scalability should really take into account is that Juniper is an enterprise product. If you are really only talking about using the Sophos UTM or only want to use the product like a firewall, then you should consider a UTM box. If you then want to add an SD-WAN as an additional part of the architecture, the UTM is not the right choice. You just take an SRX box and you have SD-WAN on that. You can have a firewall on that. You can have a UTM on that. You can integrate with the cloud. You can integrate with Linux infrastructure. You can have network security.  

Today when we talk about Check Point, we talk about Next-Generation Firewalls. That includes the Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall and Cisco Next-Generation. But no one talks about what the definition of Next-Gen is. The only difference about Next-Generation is that it has a staple firewall, by definition.  

If you are a small company and you only have five in your office, obviously you want a secure network. To do this you will buy a simple firewall. When you think of the most simple firewall, people buy a router. Then people buy a switch. Then people buy a firewall. Three devices. I would say, do not buy anything. Just buy one SRX box, which does all the three.  

Now I can also expand the same SRX 300 with a branch location. Let's say, I'm a bank customer. I have branches. Simple, I can now have the simplest of SRX 300 at all my branches or SRX 500. I just connect to my main SRX, let's say a 1500 Series with an SD-WAN topology. The project is done. Simple. I secure my network. I handle my routing. I handle my security. And I have an option for just enabling the license to get the latest threat mitigation.  

For comparison, let's take a very big enterprise network. Maybe I was the head of Informatica at APAC. I am in a situation where I have 6000 R&D developers in the organization. We monitor our total performance. Latency on the firewall should be as low as possible. This is especially critical with the current environment where people work from home. Everyone who is working from home now because of COVID has all their data still in the office and people come onto the network to get connected from home to the office.  

Imagine the load on my firewall in that situation. All the people from inside my organization are sitting outside of the office now accessing the data in the internal network through the firewall. Imagine all the data tracking is coming from all over like an external traffic base. You need to have the proper solution to handle the change in traffic and scalability is the most important factor in this case for successfully running a demanding environment.  

Juniper support is very good. But more than the technical support, their documentation is awesome. You can just Google a solution right now by stating your problem. You get into the juniper.net and there is wonderful documentation. As a technical person, I have never seen any technical documentation that is as good. I would say it is awesome. Any person who has an interest to learn, who has the interest to scale his capability with the product, just has to go to the Juniper site and they will get all the information on every one of their products. I think that it is written well enough for a non-technical person to become technical.  

They have different levels of training available. They make it very easy and available for anybody to explore the solution. There are knowledgeable people available in the technical community. It is a very good solution overall.  

I consider the setup for the product to be very easy. A basic technical person can do it. But, a person would need to know the capability of a robust box like SRX to make full use of the capabilities and the right choice of the product.  

You install the box, configure the hostname, a password, and set your IP address. By default, Juniper handles the basic configurations automatically. The control frame architecture is very nice. The whole platform architecture is very good. When you work with that box, you just divide the box into two layers: the top layer and the bottom layer. The top layer is exclusively made for the SRX box. The bottom layer is nothing but throughput where the packets get in and get out. We call it a packet forwarding engine, PFE.  

Initiating the routing packets actually go in the mapping connection between the top and the bottom, which is managed as with Oracle in an internal zone. The box is already secured when an attack happens. Nothing is 100% in the world. So, there is the possibility of an attack but at least the control center protects your network.  

The entire installation is just a couple of hours. It depends on the Oracle sizing. Let's say that you want to work on the agility of SRX, something you really need to understand is where you are deploying this product. It is different if you are comparing an SRX box or the cloud. When you are using an SRX box will it be deployed for a small enterprise, a mid-size enterprise, and a data center. You can have SRX boxes for a large data center. That is a difference in the agility of Juniper SRX compared to Cisco. For example, when I work with the cloud, I have an SRX virtual firewall, which is a high-performance network security in the virtual cloud. It is especially good for rapid deployments. It hardly takes hours to deploy on the cloud.  

When you have a container with a firewall, it is known as cSRX. Which is again, a highly available container firewall. These are used especially for microservices. When you start with a small enterprise you start with either the SRX 300 series or a 500 series, which is a next-generation firewall. It is comparable to the Cisco ASA. Probably the next good product to compare is Check Point. But the SRX product is easier to manage and deploy when compared to Check Point or Cisco.  

For the mid-size enterprise organization, we have the SRX 1400 Series or you can consider the 4000 Series. It is just an appliance. You just plug it in, switch it on, configure the network IP address, and then start configuring the protocols. You enable the licenses there, malware prevention, and all the other features you want by just adding on to the licenses.  

So it is just a matter of choosing the right appliance and from there it is practically plug-and-play. The challenge is not the initial setup and deployment, it is what you make use of.  

The main competitors for Juniper are Palo Alto, Check Point, and Cisco. Juniper has a lot of features that are good for engineering. Things like Fortinet and Cyberoam can not really compete with these others when it comes to these important features. Specifically, when you talk about Juniper SRX you talk about cloud deployment. You talk about malware remediation. You talk about reporting analytics. You talk about quarantining or threat intelligence (Unified Threat Management or UTM). You talk about data throttle, control prevention, email, web analysis, and integrated management. It can even just work as a router or assisting layer. It works best especially in large networks — like when you talk about service providers — where you have huge traffic flow. It is built to have flexibility and ease-of-use.  

My advice to anyone considering Juniper as a solution would be to first understand that the product needs to be chosen to fit the environment. You want to get the one right box that has the capacity you need. You have everything you need in the model by just updating your license. You do not have to look for a new box when your traffic remains under the upper limits of the capacity. If you are under the limitations of the capacity, the traffic goes straight out, unimpeded.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Juniper SRX as a nine or even a nine-point-five overall. Additional features that could be added to make this solution a ten that other competitors have would technically make it the best product. For example, Check Point offers Blade Architecture. You just keep adding more and more blades. Because of this, Check Point — especially in the area of their security database — they are quite superior to Juniper. o there is room for improvement.  

When you really study on an enterprise level where Check Point stands out or where Juniper stands out, you have got to look into the way each product fits your needs. I mean Check Point is currently easy-to-use, and very good, global product. It also has quite a good rating from the industry over the past few years. Certainly, someone considering a purchase needs to consider options and trends.