Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

As a firewall in general, it is good.

As we are a solution provider and not product oriented, we give the best solution for our customers, with a good price. We are the number one company in the region, BTC, and operate in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.

I've used Juniper products for over 10 years. Alongside SRX I also use Netscreen, SSG, and WXC. As a UTM, Juniper is 5/10.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

For me, the customer satisfaction, and awareness, is the most important thing. I usually train all my clients on their chosen system.

10/10

As we are a service provider, we offer various other products to our customer:

• Astaro ASG
• Avaya/Netscreen
• Fortinet
• HP Switches & WiFi
• Juniper SSG
• Juniper SRX 210 & 240
• Juniper WXC
• Sophos next generation SG, including RED, SG, and WiFi
• Telindus Crocus E1

For me, the installation and setup is simple. I work hard to do the simulation for the customer, and discuss all the requirements before implementation with the client.

Give us 10 minutes of your time, and we will show you the differences. When I do presentations, I give potential clients demo access to the solution(s) I am presenting.

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.

Our primary use case is consultation and deployment of the solution. We operate as a Juniper Elite Partner. Our customers, large enterprises, want to prevent network failure and downtime.

Improvements can be made to the GUI. The GUI can be improved by creating policies to handle IPS requirements. The configuration should be a one-step process. This would make it easier to complete the setup to register the time of operation.

Yes, it's very stable.

It's scalable. Juniper Select has a solution to boot in high availability technology. We use the Juniper Select from low-end and high-end. In my position as a Senior Network Security Engineer, I handle the high-end suite of Juniper Select 5K.

Currently, the solution is being used every day. We have plans to increase usage in the future.

Technical support is good. They seem to understand our customer's requirements. When they troubleshoot or support our customers, they seem to know what they are doing. They seem to be very helpful. But customers need support right away, and this has been an issue. It can take two to three days to get help some times just because of the volume of ticket request. 

Previously we used a CISCO ASA solution. But in the last three years, we switched to the Juniper solution because Juniper has a competitive price per feature.

The initial setup was complex. It took a group of five, engineers and architects, to get it up and running within 24-hours. And it takes a group of five, engineers and IT experts, to operate and maintain

Licensing which covers maintenance is on an annual basis. Our customers are on one-year contracts. There are additional cost above and beyond the standard licensing fees.

Before choosing Juniper, we evaluated a Fortinet solution because Fortinet has a competitive price. It's also effortless for our engineers to operate and maintain. They can understand and complete tasks quickly. 

Further advice regarding this solution is that anyone planning to implement this product should understand the Juniper suite. They should understand the firewall concept, Juniper configuration, and the command line. They need previous experience with Juniper products. 

On a scale from one to ten, one being the worst and ten being the best I'd give Juniper SRX an overall rating of eight because of its' competitive price. But it's a very complex product compared with other similar products.

• Manipulation of rules
• Flexibility in day-by-day use

Junos is the best OS for networks. It is very powerful and flexible.

The rollback option and Commit Confirmed are great features. They give us the security to change configurations without downtime.

It would be good if Junos had "unique commands" between all hierarchical levels, discarding the use of the "Run" command.

The robustness of Linux on top of Junos can be more effective after power down.

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

High level of technical support.

We used Fortinet, and changed to Juniper to use Junos.

Easy.

Pricing is very good, not expensive.

We use the SRX1500 with Junos 15.1X49-D75.5. 

I rate the product 10 out of 10. It is very strong and Junos is very powerful. The total throughput is very large.

One solution is data center Firewall and also we use this solution for protection our service GI + Triple Play

It provides good routing and high performance of the data center. It solves protecting our datacenter, separate networks and protect data center with FW policies + DPI

The routing feature is most valuable, because SRX is the best enterprise router. SRX has complete MPLS service features with L3VPN, VPLS, EVPN. You can also combine Router and FW in one box, with selective packet filter to bypass flow engine and set traffic to packet mode.

Web management needs to improve. The web interface on Juniper SRX is just a short conversion from Junos OS CLI; this is not very suitable for users with little expertise.

But Juniper has complete MGMT for managing SRX devices and other Juniper devices. it' s called Junos Space with APP security director for security devices. It's good, but there is space for improvment.

There were some stability issues.

There are not many scalability issues experienced.

I would give the technical support an eight out of 10 rating.

Previously, we were using the old Juniper ScreenOS, we switched due to end-of-support. I have also expertise with Cisco ASA, Cisco Firepower, Checkpoint R80.10, Dell Sonicwall, Fortinet.

The setup was very complex, e.g., if you are beginner.

We implement is by our self with team in-house.

The prices are very good as compared to other vendors.

We looked at Cisco, FortiGate, Palo Alto

It is a very good router with firewall.

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.

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. 

Juniper SRX is solely used as a firewall gateway. We use it only for interfacing with the internet and for server farms, as a data center firewall gateway.

Most of our clients use it as a traditional firewall, blocking Layer 3 and Layer 4, blocking by transport.

We also use firewalls from FortiGate and Palo Alto and they're built with technology to make them next-generation firewalls. Juniper utilizes a router OS and includes enhancements to make it a firewall. But FortiGate and Palo Alto are full-on firewalls because they are built from scratch with features which are specific to firewalls. 

Juniper needs to enhance the solution so that it is more powerful. They need to update the administrative tools to create an easier admin experience. An average administrator would find it easier to configure if they could use https rather than the command line interface to do so.

In addition, it would be more powerful if Juniper brought out a security product other than firewalls, like anti-spam, endpoint protection, etc. Customers who want to deploy security solutions are not just thinking about firewalls. They're thinking about security across their environment. If Juniper could give me a security solution, beyond the firewall, that integrates with the firewall, that would be helpful. Other products have built a security fabric. So if a customer already uses one of their solutions, like a firewall, they will be thinking about integrating with that vendor's other products. If there is more than just a firewall solution, they will use that same vendor's products throughout the security environment. A security fabric is more powerful than just blocking via network parameters.

Juniper should have an end-to-end solution, from the endpoint to the network level. It would provide a more powerful security solution to the customer. Customers are looking for a holistic security solution.

For one to three years it's stable.

If users want to scale up the firewall, they basically want the cheapest firewall that gives them powerful features. Most users choose FortiGate rather than Juniper. Technically, Juniper's scalability is good. But when customers look at the overall price, FortiGate will come out cheaper than Palo Alto or Juniper.

The technical support is good. The engineers help support our customers day-to-day.

The setup depends on the deployment, on what we have to configure. But from one firewall to another firewall, it's about the same. They're not really complex. We have experience using the command line and the user interface. If you ask me which one is easier to configure, I will answer that configuring through the user interface is easier.

The amount of time the deployment takes depends on the complexity of the solution. If the firewall is used as an L3 firewall or L4 firewall, for blocking by IP address and, it's going to be faster to deploy than deploying the firewall using Unified Threat Management. In that case, we need to carefully tune the VPN configuration.

The time for one of our customers to achieve ROI depends on the scalability of the product. It also depends on the type of organization. If it's a hospitality or government organization, it will take them more time to achieve ROI than an internet service provider, where using this product is in line with their business objectives.

In terms of pricing, Juniper is in the middle. The most expensive firewall is Palo Alto. If a customer wants the cheapest price they should go for FortiGate. Juniper is in between these products.

From experience, we like to use firewalls from Palo Alto and FortiGate because the solution is easy to configure with a UI to execute the app. If we use Juniper firewalls, we don't really use the UI because it is not as easy as the command line interface for configuration.

The VPN is different between Juniper and Palo Alto. As far as I know, Juniper does packet inspection in their VPN. Functions like anti-spam and antivirus are running step-by-step. Once the anti-spam processing is done, it goes on to antivirus scanning. But with Palo Alto, the technology is different. It copies each packet to each function. For example, if we activate anti-spam, antivirus, and another check, Palo Alto makes three copies of each packet and inspects them in parallel. This makes the system faster, compared to Juniper. This is the biggest difference as far as I know.

Juniper is good at the routing protocol. If you want a solution to protect your environment from the internet, I would propose a firewall gateway solution but ultimately it depends on what the customer needs.

We are partnered with Juniper, so if customers ask for a firewall solution, the first solution that we pick is generally a Juniper firewall. If a customer wants a firewall other than Juniper, we offer it. Usually, we will do a firewall like FortiGate or Palo Alto, if the customer has enough money, as Palo Alto is very expensive.