Juniper vSRX Reviews

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.

We use the solution for the VPN provider.

I like the role-based functions, but the device can now perform most of the tasks. We have open access to CLI. You can access it directly. Many vendors have also opened their CLI to Linux, making troubleshooting easier.

The GUI needs to be faster.

I have been using Juniper vSRX for five years.

Stability depends on the configuration and virtualization.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

It's scalable. They've improved because previously, you could only handle up to 500 tunnels, but now they can handle up to 2000 concurrently. Around three or four people in my team are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup is very easy. You need the management IP. Then, you can copy and paste. Additionally, in the CLI, you can load the configuration and manage devices, which saves a lot of time.

I rate the product’s pricing a three out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

Palo Alto is more better. Juniper has firewall issues. Juniper is cheaper and more reliable than others. Palantir is reliable but it is pricey.

It is easy to integrate the solution with your IT workflow. We have a lot of VM quota. We need to download the configuration. 

I recommend opting for a normal firewall if you only need around 50 percent efficiency up to the protocol level. I suggest purchasing a VM rack. You can receive support without complicating things.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The tool's most valuable features are routing features and service quality. 

The tool's basic license does not cover everything. It needs to improve visibility and availability. 

I have been working with the product for two to three years. 

The tool is very stable. 

Juniper vSRX's scalability is good. 

We chose Juniper vSRX for its price. 

I rate the tool's deployment a four out of ten. You need one month to complete the deployment for 50 sites. 

Juniper vSRX is worth its money. 

I rate the tool's pricing a five out of ten. 

We evaluated Cisco before choosing Juniper vSRX. 

I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

Juniper vSRX is expensive. 

I have been using the product for more than ten years. 

I will rate Juniper vSRX's stability a nine out of ten. 

The product's scalability is good, and my company has 150 users. 

You need two hours to install Juniper vSRX.

I rate the product a ten 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.

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.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall for security purposes in order to keep our organization safe.

In general, the entire security solution is great, from end to end.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

The solution works quite well. I can't think of any features that are lacking. I don't know where it could be improved.

Some people complain that the solution tends to have a steep learning curve. It could be because most people have basic familiarity with Cisco or other similar products and maybe have never worked closely with Juniper products. I don't find that it's a problem, however, I have heard this mentioned as an issue for some people.

We've been using the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches and doesn't seem to crash at all. Its performance is great. You can rely on it.

The solution can scale if you need it to. That's not a problem.

We do have plans to increase the usage of the product in the future.

We have technical experts who have helped us in the past. They were quite supportive. They were both responsive and knowledgable and we've been satisfied with eh level of service provided.

Before we started using Juniper, we used Huawei Firewall and its related services. We switched as we found that Juniper offered a much better service. From our perspective, everything about Juniper is better. Huawei is lacking in a few areas.

The solution isn't too complex to set up. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment, from beginning to end, takes about six months.

We had about 20 experts on the deployment project.

We used a solution provider to assist us with the implementation.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Juniper.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

We'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution an eight.