Meraki MX Reviews

You can use your web browser to do the configuration which is easier than Cisco CLI transcripts. 

We do not have account managers in our region for the solution. Some governments don't use the product since it is attached to the internet. 

The solution is scalable and you can add as much as you want. 

The solution's setup is straightforward and easier than Cisco's. There is a subscription and you need to activate it. 

The solution is expensive compared to other vendors but you can get good discounts if you know the account manager. The product is less expensive than a normal Cisco subscription. The tool's hardware warranty is a lifetime but you need to purchase support which comes in three, five, and seven years subscriptions. 

I would rate the product a ten out of ten. 

We use it for the protection of our network and for access to our network Wi-Fi. 

We mainly use two products of Meraki. We use the MX Series router and Access Point MR. MX is a router, and its deployment is installed on-premises, but the management or administration is done on the cloud.

It protects our network and does content filtering. It monitors our network for threats, and it also monitors the performance of the network. We also use it for the VPN.

The visibility that it provides is very good. It is the most valuable feature of Meraki. It allows us to easily monitor threats, internal users, and internal and external networks. We rely a lot on this facility.

Its ability to provide visibility into threats is good. By using the dashboard, we can watch and be aware of any threats and also take action if needed. 

By using the VPN, we can connect remotely. We have two offices, and we could connect them through the VPN. We could establish a network between two sites, and that has improved and increased communication and productivity. Our remote site is able to access the server remotely.

Meraki has improved our security posture. Before Meraki, we didn't have any security. Now, we are protected by the firewall. It is our first perimeter protection. It has increased security, but we know that we need more security. The maturity of our organization's security implementation is low because we don't have many tools for security. Meraki is at the beginning of our security stack. We use the Meraki firewall, and that's all. We need more tools for security, but the problem is that tools are expensive. So, currently, we are protected by just the Meraki firewall and the antivirus for the endpoints.

The visibility through the cloud dashboard is most valuable. We can access the dashboard remotely anytime for configuration and monitoring. 

Its ease of configuration and management is very useful for us and for other companies that don't have an onsite IT person. It is easy to configure and easy to manage. It is easy to configure the VPN with the Auto VPN feature.

We use a Cisco LAN switch. Its model is CBS250, and it is a Cisco Small Business switch. It can be easily integrated, but the problem is that the other Cisco products are not in the same dashboard or cloud. Each one has a different management interface. I would prefer if both could be in the same cloud. If we use a switch from Meraki, it will be more expensive. Meraki switches are more expensive than the Cisco Small Business switches. For that reason, we prefer to use Cisco switches. With Cisco switches, we don't have to pay for subscriptions, whereas with a LAN switch from Meraki, we will have to pay for subscriptions.

We have been having a problem with the VPN. When the energy goes down and is back again, the VPN link doesn't get established. We have to manually turn off the modems and other pieces of equipment and manually establish the VPN. It has been around one month since we have been having this problem, and we don't have enough support from Meraki to solve the problem.

Their Technical Assistance Center (TAC) is slow to answer. Their response time should be improved. When we request support, their response time is long and not good. They still don't have the solution to the VPN problem. They established the VPN link, but the problem continues. They don't fix the problem. They just repair it, and the problem persists.

I have been using this solution for about five years.

It is currently not stable for us. Its stability is not good. Its configuration could be the reason for the instability. 

Meraki has a lot of different products, and it is scalable with Meraki products, but its scalability with another brand is not good.

We have two administrators who are currently using this solution.

Their Technical Assistance Center (TAC) is slow to answer. We called them two times. Their time of response was one hour and fifty minutes for one call, and it was one hour and seven minutes for the other call. Our experience was not good.

When we can get support, their attention is very good, but they haven't been able to find a resolution. The problem is still there.

It was straightforward. It is easy to configure. Meraki dashboard is intuitive. Of course, you need to know about networking, but it is intuitive and very fast to do the initial configuration. It took two hours.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we planned the network, the addresses, and the segmentation before starting the configuration. We planned the ports that should be opened and the ports that must be closed for security. We also planned the rules of the firewall.

We just configured Meraki through the dashboard. In switches, we configured the segmentation and the addresses. In Meraki, we configured the rules of content filtering. We then blocked the required things. The VPN configuration is supposed to be easy, but the problem is that if the VPN goes down when we are using it, it is too complex to bring it up.

Its implementation is very new, and it was done around one month or two months ago. At this time, no maintenance is necessary. If required, our administrators or a third party can take care of maintenance. Once configured, there is no need to change anything. Its usability is very good, and it is not common to make any changes or do any maintenance. It just works.

We used a third party to help with its deployment. Our experience with them was medium. 

We just have to pay for the product and the license. We have a license for three years, and it is renewed every three years. It costs $1,200 for three years for one endpoint. 

Meraki had a good promotion for remote workers or remote workforce. The discount is very good. This promotion continues till the next fiscal year of Cisco.

We evaluated FortiGate. FortiGate is a very good firewall. It is better than Meraki, but it is more complex to configure and manage. In terms of security, FortiGate is better to integrate. We chose Meraki because of its ease of management.

FortiGate has good visibility and control through its own local interface. If you need to access the cloud, you need to go for another subscription.

FortiGate has good monitoring, visibility, and control, but Meraki is easier. Meraki has fewer security functions than FortiGate. You can monitor more in FortiGate.

The problem with FortiGate is that you need to buy FortiManager to have more visibility, which is a separate license. You can gain visibility of threats inside of the local interface of FortiGate by using FortiManager. 

It is a very good platform for small businesses. It is easy to configure and manage, and it has Talos. It is easy to integrate with other Meraki products. Its contact filtering is also good, and the VPN is very easy to configure with the Auto VPN feature.

It provides good security, but it is not the best. It is for small businesses, and it doesn't have the same functionality as Firepower or other brands, such as Fortinet. It doesn't have the same security as Firepower or FortiGate. I would recommend complementing the security provided by Meraki MX with an endpoint security solution. If you need more security, you can add sandbox security.

I would rate Meraki MX an eight out of 10.

It is a robust SD-WAN solution. It has multiple valuable features, including cellular gateways and cellular failover.

The configuration options for firewall and IPS have limitations. We do not have access to CLI, similar to other Cisco products. This particular area needs improvement.

We have been using Meraki MX for ten to twelve years.

It is a stable platform.

The platform is suitable for small to enterprise businesses.

We have had some experience working with Meraki MX's technical support team. Their response depends on the engineer's location. The support is good in some areas. For a few places, the Level 1 engineers don't have enough knowledge to deal with issues, and we have to get Level 2 or Level 3 support.

Neutral

The initial setup requires basic technical knowledge. It is easy to install. You can use the Zero Touch deployment method if your organization is spread across multiple locations worldwide.

The product's price depends on use cases. The equipment is overall reasonable. Although, enterprise licensing is expensive.

In comparison with FortiGate, Meraki MX is very competitive with SD features. It is easy to use and set up. It has a simple configuration process, making it a robust product point. However, in terms of interface, FortiGate and Palo Alto can display more complicated information, is simple to use, and has more configuration abilities.

Meraki MX needs improvement in a few areas, including the dashboard, configuration options, firewalls, and technical licensing model. I advise others to go for it if they have more technical expertise for an easy setup process. 

I rate Meraki MX a seven out of ten.

I use the solution for some simple usage in our office for the people, so there is nothing too much. I am interested in the scalability of the tool.

The solution's most valuable features stem from the single pane of glass dashboard, along with other components of the tool like configuration, administration, monitoring part, integration capabilities with Cisco solutions, and ease of comparison with other Cisco equipment or Cisco Meraki hardware devices.

I don't think I can comment on what needs improvement in the solution because of the usage of Meraki MX in our company. The tool is not complex. For my type of usage, I am satisfied with the results of the product. I think that I may use the product on a larger scale.

The fact that the product is a little expensive and how it needs to be made cheaper from an improvement perspective is a debatable topic, in my opinion.

I have been using Meraki MX for a year and a half.

I use only Cisco hardware in my building, where I also have my network with Meraki MX. I don't have any problems, and I haven't tested the equipment in a multi-vendor environment.

I didn't reach the need to use a relevant scalability test in my company because I am using the tool for the first time for just two users and four guest users. Before I can talk about scalability, I should use the tool's scalability features.

I prefer Meraki MX for personal use. In professional terms, I am working with Cisco on a regional basis in Europe.

I am happy with the technical support for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

For networking and my personal use, Meraki MX is the first infrastructure I have experience with, but on a professional side, I use Cisco.

The product's initial setup phase was simple, considering how Meraki's documentation is very intuitive, which explains how to use the platform, its configuration capabilities, and its administration.

The solution is deployed on the private cloud.

Depending on the purpose of the solution for the user, it might be worth the money. If a user wants to use extra hardware equipment at its full potential or full features on a long-term basis, Meraki MX is a good choice. If you don't want to have a complex tool with features, workload, and so on, Meraki MX can come across as an expensive solution.

The product is a little expensive.

I did not choose any other solutions in the market since I got familiar with Meraki MX. I wanted to start with Meraki MX because I thought it was the most appropriate hardware that I could use, especially to add access points, some IoT devices, and switches. Meraki MX is a tool that I can build an infrastructure around.

Within Cisco, I checked for second-generation MV cameras.

For sure, I will recommend the tool's potential users to at least do a demo because one of the best parts of interacting with Meraki is that users can use a demo version for a certain period and do their own tests to see if it is okay or not. After I was okay with the functionalities, I went to use the product for myself.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

The solution is mainly based on the cloud which is highly adaptable to the needs of its users due to its large user base. By employing over fifty VPS, we strategically position these units where clients require them the most. Remarkably, the cost of this setup is notably more affordable compared to competing alternatives. The management dashboard allows users to oversee each branch within their network. This comprehensive view is unified within the dashboard, offering insights into the entire branch network. The system works mostly for financial institutions, particularly banking clients.

The cloud management system is really valuable.           

Direct logging is something that can be introduced. In the absence of cloud management, the possibility of local configurations and on-premise logins becomes restricted. This limitation stands as a primary concern. When it comes to resolving issues, the inability to access login options hampers troubleshooting efforts.

The stability is noteworthy; but when compared to alternative products, its stability is comparatively lower. Additionally, certain limitations are observed in terms of remote control. Price-wise, the solution stands out for its competitive and cost-effective nature compared to other alternatives. Operationally, it is user-friendly and requires minimal effort from administrators, making configuration hassle-free.

I have been using Meraki MX for the last three years.

The solution is stable however there are issues and we need to reboot sometimes. I would rate it five out of ten. 

Considering the needs of medium-class clients, scalability proves to be highly advantageous. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The initial setup is easy via the cloud portal, primarily because managed support is needed for internet access. Without this, the direct configuration of the box becomes unattainable.The duration required is significantly shorter compared to alternatives. Occasionally, when dealing with a larger number of branches, like fifty or more, we managed to complete the implementation within 14 days. In cases involving complex processes and discussions, additional time might be necessary. However, once the system is set up and connected to the cloud, other configurations can be done within an eight-hour timeframe.

This solution is viable for medium-sized enterprises and even larger ones, presenting an affordable option. The scalability aspect should be factored in, considering the specific branch alterations. For branch placements, Meraki offers a suitable scalability model, adaptable based on the branch size and user count. We own a range of appropriately sized Meraki boxes to address varying branch needs. When attending to any issues, especially during branch implementations, on-site visits might be necessary. However, in the absence of cloud management, Meraki can be easily managed centrally and remotely. This approach facilitates efficient updates, configuration management, and comprehensive visibility, all streamlined within a single dashboard. 

I would rate overall solution a seven out of ten. 

The features we see and use the most are the SD-WAN, auto failover for dual ISP connections, auto failover for our VPN connections and the bandwidth monitoring are the main features. Alerting and monitoring are the next feature we see as being very beneficial.

As the only network admin in the company, I have to monitor nine remote sites (production and shipping facilities) and 12 remote VPN connections from various smaller facilities. Each location is a processing facility, which, when in season, runs 24 x 7 for the duration they are in production. During this time frame, not having a tech support person on site to fix problems is a huge cost savings for us. I see problems usually before they are large enough to need someone on site and with the cloud services I can remotely control ports, firewall connections and equipment online. Meraki products are very solid and seem to work in harsh environments very well.

I do wish you could control some ports locally from a console, but this is not the case. The only thing you can control locally is the uplink ports.

We have been using Meraki network switches and firewalls for 3.5 years and they work very well.

We haven’t had any stability problems. These MX-64, MX-84 and MX-100 devices are very durable and seem to work well in harsh environments. Our environment is fresh vegetable processing and shipping warehouses with coolers.

We have not encountered any problems with scalability. We started with 1 Mx-64, migrated to MX-84, then straight up to 2x MX-100 in a high availability configuration. We started out with 100 devices and now we are 430 devices with dual Fiber WAN connections and it runs very smoothly. We currently just integrated a MS-425-32 port 10GB network switch and it works very well.

We have had no technical support problems that could not be resolved, between our Meraki rep and their tech support services. Being available 24 hours it's very nice to have that kind of service and support.

We used to be an HPE shop. I pulled out all that equipment, and installed Meraki switches and firewalls. It’s been so nice. I have visibility into the network, as well as remote links.

Like any new equipment or networking gear, it did take a bit of time to learn the ins and outs and limitations of the Meraki gear. It’s not the Cisco CLI console that I was used to, so it was different to learn.

Well, you get what you pay for. If you want good products that work well and are easy to configure, as well as remote control, you have to weigh the pricing options. Is it worth the extra few bucks? I think so. Meraki comes with a limited lifetime warranty and they will replace the failed unit overnight if one fails.

We tried several other firewalls, such as SonicWall NSA, Cisco ASA, pfSense, Juniper, and Untangled. We found the Meraki firewalls to be the best fit.

Make sure you have your network planned out, mapped out and you can see exactly where you need the devices installed. Get a Meraki rep to assist you in the device selection and implementation. Also, try before you buy.

In our company, about a hundred employees are using Meraki MX solution.

The solution is very easy to use. It's easier than, for example, FortiGate. 

I would say that it could possibly use some deeper configurations, but I am not entirely sure. I'm still comparing it with others.

I have been using Meraki MX for several years now

My rating of the stability of Meraki MX would be a nine out of ten. 

When it comes to the scalability, would give it a seven out of ten. I didn't initially buy it or install it myself, but but we are using still it to this day.

At our company, we have been using both FortiGate and Meraki MX for some time now. We are still comparing them and deciding on which one we should stick with in the future

We use Meraki MX for system networking.

Meraki MX’s most valuable feature is cloud and app management. Additionally has a helpful feature for database troubleshooting issues.

We can’t access GUI management and CLI opening features when the Internet is unavailable.

We have been using Meraki MX for two years.

I rate the platform’s stability a seven and a half.

We have two administrators and 600 end users for Meraki MX.

The technical support services are good.

Positive

The initial setup is complicated when the Internet is unavailable. However, it is easy to configure and takes two years to complete.

The product’s price is reasonable.

I rate Meraki MX an eight out of ten.