Juniper vSRX Reviews

We did a project for the government. We deployed the Juniper Firewall on their premises. The solution is used for the security purpose of client infrastructure security. There are three types of zones: zone-to-zone-based policy, IPS intrusion, and other policies implemented there.

The graphical unit is slow. Also, Juniper vendor shipping of UPM devices, support, Bandwidth shift, and other activities are very complex.

I have been using Juniper vSRX for six months.

Compared to the Palo Alto firewall and Fortinet firewall, Juniper has low stability. After deploying, I didn't face any challenges.

The solution is scalable. There's one client requirement to make an external firewall. There is no HA. We are focusing more on the user. We are working with Fortinet, Juniper, and Cisco teams to provide our clients with the best solutions. If the client is interested in Juniper, we implement that.

The initial setup is straightforward. For deployment, we are using some networking devices for the routing. I deployed it in the firewall inline mode and created some zones for security purposes.

People in Bangladesh, including the government and small businesses, have pricing issues.

Many customers are using Juniper routers and switches, which has prompted another team to work with Office 365. I am only working on the Juniper firewall part. The technical side is almost the same, and the function is similar with respect to other competitors. Juniper deployment is not very complex, but Cisco deployment is very complex.

I recommend having a price and other comparison with Palo Alto and others.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.

The command feature is valuable. The product provides restore and backup features, too.

The GUI is complex. The security feature must be improved.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. We have 1500 users.

The initial setup was easy. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. It took us six months to deploy the product.

The solution is pricey. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

I prefer Fortinet over Juniper vSRX. Fortinet provides more features.

I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We are Value Add Resellers and we provide the Cloud for our customers.

We set up Amazon Web Services as the cloud for our customers.

It's standard, with standard routing.

Juniper vSRX has everything at the moment; they are covering it all and getting into automation, which is great.

The dashboard, customization, API, and pricing are good.

VPN access is an area that needs improvement.

I have been using Juniper vSRX for four years.

This is a product that I have been using it ever since it was released.

This product is very stable.

Juniper vSRX is scalable. 

We have four users in our organization.

Technical support has been very supportive.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We did not use a vendor team, reseller, or an integrator. The implementation was done in-house.

The pricing is reasonable.

I can recommend Juniper vSRX to others who are looking at implementing it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use the solution for network authentication, what you use while accessing the network. In general, controlling the traffic going inside the enterprise and off it.

I find the VPN and the cluster the most valuable features.

The syndication or domain controllers, quick policies, and user rules - like being able to see the IP source and destination could be improved. This feature already exists in Palo Alto.

They really need to improve the GUI.

The stability is getting better. It has got some bugs.

The scalability is good. It's very flexible, but the problem is the GUI is not very easy to use.

They have good technical support but we very rarely use technical support. We go through vendors.

We previously used Cisco.

The initial setup was very straightforward. There was no problem. The initial deployment took about one hour. One person is enough for deployment and maintenance.

I implemented the solution myself.

In Saudi Arabia, Juniper has a problem with marketing. They're less well known. A lot of companies are changing or going with Palo Alto.

With the GUI, the firewall is not easy to use. It doesn't cover all the features. Juniper should enhance the GUI, and make it easier to use. Both the firewall and virtual security are hard to use. It's not easy to configure it and not friendly to users.

I would advise for those thinking about using the product, to make sure they learn as much as possible, and also look to use a redundancy.

I would rate this solution seven out of 10.

Our primary use case for the Juniper vSRX solution is protection. We use it for Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS).

At the moment, we have about 120 vessels running under Juniper vSRX with 20 people per vessel. It's 2400 users. For deployment and maintenance, we have nine people.

We don't use anything extra on the production side. We would like to increase usage. We are going to put an inner portfolio on more than 20,000 vessels. 

We plan to put all of them under the same umbrella with Juniper vSRX.

The features we found most valuable are using the IDS and IPS during protection. For prevention, the application filtering feature is great, fantastic.

Up to the point we have used it now, there is no need for anything extra in the product.

The stability of the solution is very good. It's very stable.

Juniper vSRX is very scalable and easy to use. The difference is that we are always using it. The scalability is the main reason why we got it. 

We evaluated quite a lot of products before we took on this station. It's expensive.

The technical support is very good. They are very fast. They are our partners. It's in their benefit to help us work efficiently. They are earning money on it.

The initial setup is straightforward. Our deployment took three months. We had to put it together with many adjustments for the system to work together.

We used our partner Teresa for the installation of Juniper vSRX.

We evaluated the IDS and IPS without considering application filtering. It is easy to connect Juniper vSRX to the vessels. We have vessels that lead to connectivity.

Our network is very limited. One of the most important details with Juniper vSRX is that we can collect all of the updates in one single place and then push it over to the vessel. 

This was something very important to us in production.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 10. When you've got a 10, there is nothing to improve. There's nothing to add. The pricing still needs some improvement.

One of Juniper vSRX's most valuable features is its integration with safety applications. It keeps the software secure from developers without relying on third-party solutions.

The biggest downside of Juniper vSRX is its pricing, which may be too high for smaller organizations. While it's a decent solution, the cost may limit its accessibility to smaller customers.

I have been working with the product for five to six years. 

The solution's stability is good. It responds very quickly in crisis situations, which might be partly because I know the team there and how to get the information I need.

The tool's scalability is good. 

I've seen really fast response times with Juniper vSRX. When there's a problem, it modifies the firmware quickly to respond to the threat. With Cisco, it can take months to make changes because their architecture is more complicated. Juniper vSRX and Fortinet are straightforward. 

Positive

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

The primary use case of this solution is to load traffic for our RH team so that they can connect to our servers on our other sites. 

I load source addresses to connect to the destination address with applications such as HTTP, HTTPs, and SSH to connect the servers to the RH team.

The flexibility of the commit check and the commit confirmed commands is very good. The design of the forwarding plane and the control plane in the operating system is very important in performing when we have a large amount of traffic.

The architecture of the OS in Juniper is very good. It's flexibility, scalability, and the technicality are also good.

The support can be improved. 

The GUI needs to be improved, as Cisco is more advanced with their ASDM platform.

In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to the GUI because it isn't very good.

I would like them to discard some of the existing commands because we have to delete them. It should be more practical.

I have been working with Juniper for more than two years.

The versions that I have worked with are the SRX 550, 3600 and 5800.

This solution is scalable.

I have dealt with Cisco's Technical support as well as the Technical support from Juniper, and there are some differences. Cisco is more available, and the degree of competence regarding our case is better.

We have used both Cisco and Juniper products. When comparing them, there are differences with the command line interface. Cisco is more advanced.

After some research, I think that the cost of Juniper is more than Check Point, Palo Alto, and Fortinet. 

I would recommend Juniper because they have a good product, especially the 5800 version. 

This is a good product for internet service providers.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.