Meraki MX Reviews

• Users can manage and troubleshoot from anywhere.
• It's easy to set up, configure, and manage.
• It provides superior security.
• Interconnected management unlocks new possibilities.
• Lower TCO (total cost of ownership).

• Easy and simple to deploy for new branch
• Easy and simple to troubleshoot from anywhere
• We are better secured
• Good warranty

It can be improved in many areas, because it has many proprietary models for many different areas.

I have been using this solution since 2009.

Yes, I have encountered some issues in the past.

I usually contact technical support for advice. The technical support team is very good. We can send them an email or call them directly.

Some older solutions which we had before, we converted to this solution and used old technology that was difficult to control.

The initial setup was simple.

Before choosing Meraki MX Firewalls, I had some other options: Fortinet FortiGate and Cisco ASA.

We use Meraki MX firewalls with Cisco. Some features must go through Cisco to implement. What the application needs is not included in Meraki. 

I use Cisco to access a portal and they provide the features. Then we implement it in Meraki.

It's the vision of the company through the managing directors to use Meraki as a solution for switches. I suggested using the firewall or a private solution like FortiGate.

FortiGate is cheaper than Meraki. Even the license renewal is less than Meraki.

The features we have found most valuable are the firewall and the monitoring tools.

This product has room for improvement. The main features not included with the firewall is the virtual domain. With Meraki, the interface for the virtual domain could be improved.

The virtual domain is a concurrent session. The concurrent session is limited in Meraki, like FortiGate. In MX100, it's around 200 to 25,000 concurrent sessions.

In the same model with FortiGate, it's around five million concurrent sessions. It's very important to improve in Meraki.

In my view, it is very important that the number of concurrent sessions is increased.

It's stable, but there are also some features not included in Meraki.

I'm using it. It's very good. One person is required for the administration only.

The solution's technical support is good. I would rate it 8/10.

I was using Cisco and FortiGate.

The initial setup is simple. Our deployment took around 30 minutes.

I did the setup by myself. Sometimes I referred back to the integrator for support if I need to for a specific tool or policy.

Our license for the Meraki MX firewall is on an annual basis.

I am not switching to Meraki. I am combining. I'm combining to be consistent with FortiGate as it has a more powerful graph. If I do not renew the license in Meraki, the box sets would be stopped. 

In FortiGate, I can have up to one month or two months to renew. The box is working locally. It's not important to the internet service to get registered. But the box is fully licensed.

I was with Cisco but it's very expensive.

For this solution, Meraki is still more expensive than FortiGate. The FortiGate license is still less than the Meraki license. 

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate Meraki MX firewalls a 7. If they were to add the configuration tools, then it would be much higher.

Within our company, there are a lot of remote access users. We also have a couple of offices and some international users as well.

In general, Meraki MX is easy to work with. 

I have been using Meraki MX for two years.

Meraki MX is both scalable and stable.

I really didn't experience any areas of complexity. The most complex part of the initial setup was setting up a conference camera. We host a lot of international board meetings that require video calling. 

The pricing could always be improved — especially with the shape the economy is in at the moment.

I don't have much advice to offer — everybody has to do their due diligence.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MX a rating of eight.

• Easy to configure
• Provides site-to-site VPN's
• VLAN's
• DHCP
• multiple WANs

We are using it as a content filtering and load balancing application.

They should improve load balancing.

We had no issues with the deployment.

We have had issue with the load balancing.

We have had no issues scaling.

Meraki support is really good.

We also use Meraki MR and Aerohive devices.

Meraki setup is really easy.

Both Meraki and Aerohive are good products, and I prefer Meraki. I work with Meraki products in production. Meraki are more intuitive than Aerohive.

We deploy this solution for our customers. We do the cloud and on-premises deployments, and we have all the versions.

It is very easy to use and manage. It is also very easy to scale.

In general, the SD-WAN feature needs to be improved. The load sharing and load balancing of the traffic should be improved. I have had some problems with these features in the past.

I have been using Meraki MX since 2016.

It has very good stability.

It is very scalable. We have all kinds of customers.

They have very good technical support. Cisco Meraki's support is incredible.

The initial setup can be complex. It usually depends on the scenario. The deployment usually takes half a day, but it again depends on the scenario.

It is a good global solution in terms of the price and features, but because we sell this solution in dollars, sometimes we don't get to sell this solution in Brazil because the dollar is very expensive. 

The price of every project is different. It varies depending upon the project, scenario, and client.

I would recommend this solution based on the use case. I would rate Meraki MX an eight out of ten.

The internet traffic shaping functionality has been very valuable.

The IPS, the Intrusion Prevention System, can be improved. If they can add I think the next generation firewalls, that would be great.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This is an edge firewall in our company. It has the powerful options of ISP, AMP, antivirus, SD-WAN, applications control, and traffic shaping. 

In a week, we can make new policy and view what all our users did.

We appreciate the ISP features: AMP, Antivirus, applications control, and traffic shaping. The dashboard is very intuitive and easy to understand. 

I think for now, it is good. However, we could have more reporting options and the ability to send alarms to the administrator. 

It has good support services.

Our organization had a traditional WAN. We had routers to connect our branches, which was a very complex solution. 

Now, with Cisco Meraki MX84, we have a SD-WAN, and we only need Internet in all our branches. Thus, we have an easy solution to connect new branches and it is very fast.

It is very fast to implement and very easy to configure.

We use it for UTM devices.

We have roughly 200 users, using this solution.

We prefer UTM solutions.

As far as what needs to be improved — nothing really comes to mind. It does what we need it to do.

I have been using Meraki MX for more than five years.

Both the scalability and the scalability are great with Meraki MX.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment takes less than one day.

If you're thinking about implementing Meraki MX, make sure to plan it properly. Planning takes time which gives you the ability to make sure it's scaled properly, without too much complexity.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine — nothing is perfect.