Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

We use the virtual on-premises in our data centers.

The reason that we picked Juniper SRX is for the scalability, the fit for purpose, the tools that are available, the ongoing support, and the ability to monitor, but particularly for the virtual routers in our data centers so that we can quickly upscale them when needed, when we need more throughput.

In the last year, we've started to roll out Juniper SRX for new sites. It has only been a couple, but we'll have about 10 to 15 sites within the next month in the new framework, and we'll also be putting a virtual SRX router at our gateway in our data centers as well.

We are using the latest version. It's not finalized to install yet. I expect it to be finalized next week in our city and Melbourne data centers.

So far they've been good in terms of stability.

The scalability has been very good so far.

We've got 420 staff using it, plus two of my internal team and two of my MSPs, four people,  working on the network stuff.

We have been in touch with support and they've been good. During the configuration stages, we had a couple of tickets and they were responsive to it.

The first configuration with my network experts took a little bit of time to work through the differences between their knowledge of the Huawei networking and the Juniper set-up and the change from all the Huawei to the Juniper and Sophos access points. The first install took a couple of weeks to configure the actual hardware, and then on site, what we expected to take half a day in the first instance probably took a week, but once we did one, we've been ok rolling out the next ones after that.

In terms of the initial setup being straightforward, that depends on your knowledge of the product. Juniper has been fairly responsive when my team has asked them questions. So it has taken us longer to install than I would've hoped, but that's one of those things when you change your products.

There is a component of monthly and yearly costs depending on the product.

Ongoing costs are something that we need to manage and make sure that we're getting value on. But with feeding the data back in and the capability, we're hoping that it will pay for itself in the monitoring tools and the ability to go past just the different baselines of stability and scalability to actually make sure that we're proactive in keeping our networks alive.

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

The main thing is cost. Having said that, it's not ridiculous, but you're always looking for the best value, and them bringing out the virtual cores has been really good. The cost is more expensive, but you're getting a bang for your buck. They are very good value for money in their product.

The overall, ongoing costs of licensing has added to my budget, but until I get long-term experience and make sure that it's running as expected, I can't say it's everything that I expected.

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.

The solution is primarily used in two ways: to protect our three data centers and servers. It works at protecting both areas from malicious attacks.

We have worked with the solution for a while and therefore have become quite versed in it. We're comfortable with its tech and have a good understanding of how best to use it. 

The initial setup was easy.

In terms of usability, there are good forums on offer and they've got a lot of technical documentation for everything. 

Technical support is good. They quickly respond, and they even have local help here. They can actually give you an answer very quickly.

The solution has been stable over the years.

The capacity can be limiting. We have outgrown its capacity. You can only scale up to a certain extent, depending on the device purchased. 

There are cheaper options on the market.

The reporting and alerts could be improved. If you had alerts, whereby you can have things like intrusion detection systems quickly alerting the security managers of a breach would be helpful. 

They need to work on the user interface. Most tasks are done by commands, and if you don't have experience using the command line, it's terrible. They should make it easier.

We've only been using the latest solution for a few days. It's quite new to us. It replaced a previous version, which we had for five years. 

The stability is quite good. It's very reliable as long as your power is okay. It's a good device and good software and is a great piece of equipment, however, if your power has any issues, then you are likely to lose it after power surges.

Scalability is limited and you need the right sizing. In our case, our device has reached the end of life, and there are no more plugins that we can actually use.

We're quite satisfied with technical support. They are very helpful and responsive and there is good documentation.

We've also used Cyberoam, which is now Sophos. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. It's an easy process and not very difficult or complex. 

The license we have now is perpetual, however, going forward, with a newer version, we're looking at annual or bi-annual licensing. 

The cost is not cheap or overly expensive. It's middle of the road. 

We are just a customer.

It's a good device overall. I'd recommend it to other users and companies. As long as a customer is buying something that is supported and has a good lifespan, they should be happy.

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

The solution can scale very well.

It's quite a user-friendly solution and I find it to be easy to navigate. 

The initial setup is very easy.

The stability has been quite good. 

Technical support has been quite helpful. 

The pricing has become very reasonable and we find them to be competitive.

The reporting is lacking. it's an aspect of the solution I would like to see improved upon in the future. 

The solution isn't as present in the market as Cisco and Fortigate. They need to do a better job of marketing themselves and becoming more visible. 

I've used the solution for a number of years at this point. I started using it around 2012 or 2013. It's been a while. 

The stability has been good. Over the years there have been no issues with crashing or freezing and there are no bugs or glitches. 

The product scales very well. It's not a problem if your company needs to expand it. 

In our office, we have about 120 people protected under Juniper. However, we have proposed it to many customers and some clients use it as well. Some of them are quite sizeable businesses. 

We've used technical support in the past and have been satisfied with the level of service they provide. they are helpful and responsive. 

I'm also familiar with Cisco and Fortigate.

The initial setup was straightforward. This is due to the fact that we have a decent Juniper-certified team.

We are integrators and can install it for our clients if they need us to. 

We pay an annual licensing fee. 

In the past, they would sometimes be more expensive than Fortinet, however, we have noticed that their pricing has come down a bit and now they are very reasonable. 

We are a reseller and systems integrator. We are also a customer. 

In the office, we have Juniper SRX firewalls. We have not activated the SD-WAN.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

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

We use Juniper SRX to create VPN tunnels to the data center.

I like that Juniper SRX is easy to use, scalable, and stable with good performance.

In the next release, I would like to have a better web interface. It needs to be more user-friendly. Right now, you can only access many features through the console.

We have been using Juniper SRX for about five years.

Juniper SRX is a stable solution that performs well.

Juniper SRX is a scalable solution.

Technical support is brilliant, but I guess you have to pay for it.

The initial setup was straightforward. The time it takes to implement this solution depends on the complexity of the configuration.

We implemented this solution by ourselves.

In general, their price definitely couldn't be cheaper. 

I would recommend this solution to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Juniper SRX a ten.

We use it for the firewall.

It's fine, and it's good. It's very stable.

It could be more secure.

I have been using Juniper SRX for about five years.

Very stable. These firewalls are stable.

We had Cisco, but when comparing the price, Juniper SRX was cheaper.

I would recommend this solution to new users.

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

I used this solution in my previous organization. We used it to protect data centers and some private resources.

What I like the most about Juniper is that they have the same CLI on all routers, switches, and firewalls. If you have worked with any Juniper device, such as a Juniper router, you will be able to work with an SRX, which is really cool. It is a nice experience to work with every device of Juniper, not only firewalls.

As a networking person, I don't really have any major issues with this device. Based on my experience of using it in a cluster, it could be more stable. I had an incident when one of the SRXs in a cluster couldn't learn ARP.

It is a good solution, but firewalls don't seem to be an area of development for Juniper. They are focusing on data centers, routers, and switches, not firewalls.

Its stability isn't bad. In two years of supporting this device, I had only one issue. I had an incident when one of the SRXs in a cluster couldn't learn ARP, and the request didn't move between cluster units. I had to fix this manually, which wasn't really cool because I had to get up in the night because of this incident.

We weren't using it in a high load infrastructure.

I didn't really need their support. I only needed their support for the demo of their CSR product because it wasn't working as mentioned in their documents.

Its initial setup is straightforward. If you are a network engineer with some experience, you will be able to configure it easily. I have configured many Juniper firewalls, and it was really easy. Configuring the device isn't a problem. The main problem is preparing the environment and the infrastructure for your device.

It took more than one year to use this solution in production because I used a lot of features in my demo infrastructure, such as VSRX, to demonstrate this solution to potential and existing customers.

I like the SRX series. In fact, I like all products from Juniper. 

I would rate Juniper SRX an eight out of ten.

This product is our network firewall.

The Juniper SRX series is easy to use.

The interface could be more user-friendly.

I have been using Juniper SRX for a few years.

I have never needed to contact Juniper technical support.

I have not been involved in the installation of this device.

There is a licensing fee.

This is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.