SonicWall NSV Reviews

We are distributors of SonicWall. We install and implement solutions on our customers' sites.

SonicWall NSV at the customer sites.

We purchased the AGSS Bundle (Advanced Gateway Security Suite) for the security services, such as antivirus, intrusion prevention system, and anti-spyware botnet GUI. I enabled the security service, and I configured the sandboxing, capture ATP, and a few firewall access rules, such as filter policy, as well as the application filter policy. If necessary, we write certain policies that are related to the Net policy.

The hardware box renewal appliances GUI became extremely slow after the release of SonicOS 7.

When I compare SonicWall to its competitors, I notice that there are some functions that I cannot perform with the SonicWall appliance. For example, when I assign a user base bandwidth management, I enable the ULA (User Level Authentication), but I need a different solution and must enable browser-based authentication.

SonicWall requires certain features such as the authentication agent and user-based routing.

There are limitations to bandwidth management. When used in the education sector, there are some difficulties. They require bandwidth management, an authentication agent, and SSL VPNs.

Google Chrome is not supported, which is why the ULA occasionally fails to function. The authentication page does not appear.

The earlier model is TZ SOHO, they now have a startup with TZ270. We have some offices that have 10 users, as well as a limited amount of users that require a small device such as TZ SOHO, and not the TZ270. 

We are having some difficulties with the SOHO 250 model, regarding the throughput, but when I use the TZ270 it works well. I decided to replace it with TZ270.

When I enable the ULA, the Sophos core usage increases dramatically. Everything works fine when I use the IP-based policy. In general, when it comes to IP-based configuration, everything is fine; everything works great.

In terms of user-based policies and Gen 7, we have several problems with the ULA, and the page does not appear. We are unable to log in when the page does not appear, even when we have entered the correct credentials.

SonicWall, as well as other competitors, have SD-WAN, however, SonicWall features are different. The web filter component, the application component, and the firewall access rules, for example, are all different in the SonicWall Appliance.

When creating firewall access rules in Sophos and Fortinet, I just define the source, destination, and user, as well as a web filter, an application filter, and user bandwidth management on a single line. I only follow one rule and have never had a problem.

Everything is contained in a single rule only when I create it. I can assign web filter policies, application filter policies, and I can apply all security services in a single rule.

I have been working with SonicWall for the last seven years.

SonicWall NSV is a stable solution.

This solution is easy to scale.

We've implemented Azure, Hyper-V, a few firewalls, Microsoft Azure, and a Fortinet virtual appliance in a Hyper-V environment.

SonicWall, Sophos, and Fortinet are the three products that we implement.

Both Fortinet and Sophos are good solutions and provide many features.

The solution used is based on the client's requirements. Some may require multiple SSL VPN licenses and others need an SSL VPN, or bandwidth management, or authentication agent.

Most often, I suggest Sophos.

When working in the education sector I prefer working with the Sophos firewall.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy to deploy.

I've done a number of deployments for our clients. We haven't had any difficulties. It's working well.

I am familiar with the GUI, which helps with the deployment process.

The deployment is normally 20 to 30 minutes, but it depends on the hardware configuration.

For example, when we deploy in a VMware platform or a Hyper-V platform it can take anywhere from 25 to 45 minutes to complete.

We are currently using the trial version.

The price is reasonable.

I recommend Sophos because I have several issues with SonicWall.

Even though we had some issues, we still believe SonicWall is a good solution.

I would rate SonicWall NSV an eight out of ten.

We use SonicWall NSV as the firewall component of our network and security solution.

The security of this system is fantastic, including the IPS and IDS.

The interface is wonderful and easy to use.

I primarily make use of reporting capabilities.

With eight branches, we are not a very big customer and find that the pricing is a little bit expensive. We are a large community bank that has been around for 100 years, but we only have eight branches. That said, the pricing is still much better than it was with Cisco.

I would like to see the reporting opened up and have several more opportunities for automatic reports. I have experience with building custom reports that I can use, but I don't have that kind of time anymore. Having more canned reports, which is what Firepower gave us, would be very beneficial.

We have been using SonicWall NSV for three years.

The stability has been fantastic. There have been some minor hiccups and there are some nuances that Cisco does better.

This firewall is set up at eight different branches. There are eight people who use the reporting features and of a total of approximately 80 to 85 users.

We were a complete Cisco shop for switches, firewalls, and everything, up until about three years ago. At that point, I switched from Cisco to SonicWall for my firewalls. At the time, they compared very well.

Cisco has a very good product in my opinion, you almost have to have a doctorate to work on one of their firewall solutions. They're really, really technical. Nonetheless, if Cisco was more affordable then we may still be with them.

FirePower was a slightly better product when it came to reporting and the things that I have to deal with. Part of my job is FDIC and FFIEC audits, and for this work, Cisco Firepower was better. At the same time, it was four times the price. You get what you pay for. At the same time, I think that SonicWall is continuously improving so they'll catch up.

The initial setup was pretty simple. All eight branches were in place well within a week to a week and a half, with just one person doing it. To me, that seemed very reasonable.

I have a third-party network administrator who manages this solution for me. It's a small computer company that has all of the tools, they set up the parameters, network tunnels, and other applications such as Active Directory. Their name is Isinguard Technology Group, and they are a value-added dealer for a lot of different products.

At the time, I couldn't buy the product directly from them. Instead, I had to purchase it through a third-party. However, I think that they do now have a license to sell SonicWall.

The network specialist was very familiar with SonicWall and had been working with it for a long time. It took him about three days to make sure that the group policies were set on all eight of the firewalls.

Our initial purchase, which included a three-year term of support, was about $25,000 USD. After that, it was another $12,000 to $15,000.

I had considered Palo Alto. They have a fantastic product but they are so expensive that I couldn't even look at them.

I have used FireEye in conjunction with this product and it was great.

My advice for anybody who is considering SonicWall NSV is to look at what environment they came from, especially if it was Cisco, and compare the two of them. They need to be prepared for what they may give up. For example, compared to Cisco, reporting is better than it is in SonicWall. Essentially, you have to find out what you're going to give up for the money you're going to save. Once that is determined and you weigh the pros and cons, including how important what you're giving up is, you can decide. It is important to remember that as far as security and stability go, you're not giving up anything.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.