Juniper vSRX Reviews

We are a solution provider and the vSRX is something that we have included in one of the solutions that we sell to our customers for cyber security protection. Our initial deployment was on-premises at one of our customer's sites.

We were so happy with vSRX that we expanded its usage. We design and prepare solutions for ships, and we have included the vSRX as part of our cyber security solution for them. It is still an on-premises deployment, although the premises is a vessel.

This product is primarily used for its UTM functionality. We collect all of the logs that the UTM produces onboard each ship and bring them onshore. At that point, we reevaluate them. We give full accessibility to the customers, allowing them to see what the UTM is doing on their ships.

This product has improved the way our organization functions because prior to implementing it, vessels did not have this technology. There was nothing equal to it.

The most valuable features are application filtering, content filtering, the intrusion prevention system (IPS), and definitely the application firewall.

We use the SSL inspection capability, which we really like a lot.

The reporting can be improved.

I have been working with Juniper vSRX for three years.

Stability-wise, it is very good. This product is very stable and it's proven to be a very good tool for us. It is used extensively because it is part of the ship's main operations. All of the data that goes in or out of the vessel is inspected by it.

This is quite a scalable product. It is easier to scale than the SRX because it's virtual. It's easier to assign more resources than it is to add more hardware.

We have installed this solution on approximately 450 ships with about 20 people in each of them. Many more of our customers have ships and we expect to surpass 1,000 installations within the next two or three years.

The technical support is very good.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. A product did not exist for our customers' ships, so we introduced it using the vSRX.

We have also implemented the Juniper SRX and the vSRX takes a little bit longer because the design is more complex. From the design phase to implementation and deployment, it takes between two and three days to complete.

We had a partner do the implementation for us. The maintenance is also done by a partner. We have a lot of vSRX devices out there, and we are not actively maintaining them ourselves, so we have our partner to take care of it.

We did not evaluate other options before implementing this solution. We are Juniper SRX users and we were so happy with that product that we decided the only solution had to be the vSRX.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is that the whole thing is about the design. If you design it well, consider how you should introduce it into your organization, and have a good implementor to ensure that it integrates well into the platforms you already have in place, then you won't have any problems with the implementation phase. Having a good integrator is very important.

Feature-wise, this product isn't missing anything. There is nothing that we have asked for that isn't there. Our only complaint is about the reporting.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It's where we face some of our IPsec tunnels.

It's basic functionality is probably the most valuable feature.

Juniper has some really good ideas, but I think they have missed the boat with regard to execution.

The GUI really needs a lot of work, and it has got worse with successive version updates. There are some things that are just easier to look at in the GUI, and they've removed some features that were very helpful.

Even though the features are still available in the CLI, sometimes it's just easier to look at the rules in a hierarchical fashion in the GUI.

The hardware needs some serious work as well. In the four years we've had Juniper vSRX, we've had four RMAs. Each of the three physical devices that we have has been replaced at least once.

A better methodology of looking at how a proposed rule would act on the network would be good to have. For example, Cisco ASA had a tool where you could write a rule or a policy, and it would tell you whether it stopped specific traffic.

I've used it for the last four years.

My impressions of this solution's stability is not very favorable. We haven't had any problems with actual stability in the last couple of years, but it has lost its mind a couple of times and required rebooting.

The technical support for this solution is fair. I've had a lot worse, and I've had better, so it's run of the mill.

We were using Cisco ASA before Juniper vSRX.

The reason that we didn't go with Cisco is that their products were behind the times. Other products had more up-to-date technology.

We're a small organization, and the initial setup was pretty straightforward. I do the maintenance of the solution.

We hired an outside vendor to help with initial deployment.

On a qualitative level, Juniper vSRX is taking care of what we need it to. So far, we haven't had an attack, but we did have a breach.

The ongoing licensing cost seems to be pretty standard. There are no additional costs.

I recommend looking elsewhere. I'm not particularly enamored with Juniper vSRX. I've had a lot of problems with it. We're looking to replace Juniper with either Aruba or FortiGate based on usability and affordability.

Overall, I would rate this solution at four on a scale from one to ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is for VPN.

We find its graphical user interface valuable because we can easily route the traffic and set up the devices according to our needs.

The solution can be improved by allowing automatic updates for the OS devices. For example, when we want to update our hardware device system, we have to download the OS package, attach the file with the hardware, and send a command to upgrade that package. However, with others, we can use the D-Link devices and click to check the online update and update it. In this case, we have to attach something from our local storage and then send a command to update Juniper.

We have been using the solution for over two years and are currently using an older version.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. We can increase the number of users if we want. We have about 25 users connected to our central VPN devices, and we can add more devices.

We do not have experience with customer service and support.

Fortinet is better than Juniper vSRX because they have an effective price. In addition, if you check the public feedback for Fortinet is around 9.0 and is highly recommended.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes approximately 30 minutes.

The pricing is reasonable, but I do not have specific details.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, I would recommend Fortinet first because they cover all the endpoint protection, VPN protection and email protection. Second I would recommend Sophos, and third I would recommend Falcon.

This solution works well. Their switches and firewall are good.

Fortinet is more user friendly than Juniper. In terms of remote access, I actually prefer using Fortinet. It is much easier to configure. When someone uses Juniper for the first time, it can be very intimidating. At one time, Juniper had what was known as a MAG, which was meant for remote access for users on the SRX.

They sold MAG and now remote access on Juniper leaves a lot to be desired because they don't have their own client. You have to use Pulse Secure or another solution. When there's a bug, Juniper relies on Pulse Secure and in our experience, this took six months to fix.

I have been using this solution for ten years. 

This is a scalable solution. 

For those who can afford it afford it, I would recommend Palo Alto over Juniper.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.  

The software is good. It's similar to when we used LAN and Cisco routers and firewalls in the past. We were able to scale. Juniper is better than Cisco for management.

It is pretty complex to manage and could be easier.

We have been using this solution for about nine years, and it is deployed on-premises. We are using version SRX 500.

The hardware is stable and more stable than Sophos.

It is a scalable solution. We have about 500 users using this solution in our company.

It is easy to install.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten, and I would recommend it to other people.

Mine control is not an easy area to control in Juniper. There are also too many steps for configuration, like the IP address policy. There are too many types of licenses, which can be confusing. Simple licenses should be built in.

Processing is too slow between Juniper and Cisco. Palo Alto is faster. The database is not as complete as Cisco or Palo Alto.

I've been using this solution for around 11 years.

I also use Cisco and Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution 6 out of 10.