SonicWall TZ Reviews

We are using this firewall with content filtering and other features. 

We are able to block whatever we want to block by using this product. It provides all required security features, such as content filtering, VPN, in one box. Before switching to SonicWall, we had specified all required features.

It could be made more user friendly.

We have been using SonicWall products for around ten years. Specifically, we have been using SonicWall TZ for the last five years.

It is a stable solution.

It is fine in terms of scalability.

Their technical support is good. For technical support, sometimes we write directly to SonicWall, and they provide the solution. We sometimes also contact our vendor for support. 

We used GajShield previously. The product went down once, and the GajShield team was unable to provide the support. That's why we replaced the product. 

Its installation is very easy. It took around four hours to install it.

Implementation was done by me with some help from the vendor. I also manage this solution and use it on daily basis. We have an AMC contract with SonicWall, and we renew it directly with them. 

Its pricing is okay as compared to other solutions.

We have been using this product for around ten years, and we are very comfortable with this product. I would recommend this product based on your requirements. 

I would rate SonicWall TZ a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for its firewall capabilities.

The best thing about the product is the very good threat prevention output.

The dashboard needs to be improved.

They can work on the GUI part of the solution. Currently, it is a little bit complicated as compared to other competitors.

Each uplink is quite a big and complicated sort of tool. Other products, like Checkpoint, are so-so, however, they are better. Fortinet is a good example of one that is very good and easy to use.

I've been working with the solution for four to five years.

The stability is excellent. We find it to be reliable. We haven't had any issues at all.

We consider growing the solution based on the company's needs. We work with different sizes of organizations. We try to project out what a company will need, not tomorrow, but three years down the line, and build for that on day one.

We do this due to the fact that it's not exactly scalable. We build it bigger so organizations can grow into the solution quite a bit. Users are restricted by the model of the firewall, so if you choose something that's too small, it won't be able to meet your needs and you'll have to start over and trade up to a bigger model.

If a TZ series can handle 500 users, and a company currently has 200 users, they'll be able to scale up, technically speaking, to about 300 more users before they hit their threshold.

Basically, the scalability is not infinite. It's quite limited to the capacity of the model itself.

We've never dealt with technical support. We've managed to handle any issues ourselves, in-house. I can't speak to the kind of service they provide.

I also have experience with Sophos XG.

I find that there aren't too many differences between firewalls, as everyone has the same platform and goals.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very straightforward. We found it to be quite easy.

It may take a while to deploy the solution, at least here in Haiti. It will take longer than a few hours. Depending on the client, it can take anywhere from a day or two to up to ten or 15 days.

It's all dependent on the customer side. What will define the length of time will be is the mobile policy they want to implement on the firewall. That depends on the customer.

You only need one person to deploy and maintain the solution.

We're resellers. We handle the implementation for our clients.

We use this solution ourselves, however, we also deploy it for our clients. We're resellers.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I don't know if I have specific advice, as each customer is different and has different needs in terms of security. It depends on their policies and how they want to implement them. There are almost endless amounts of policies that can be added to the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Once we moved the units up to the Gen 6 platform, they could support SSL-DPI. We are huge fans of the DPI. That piece is incredibly easy to implement. I'd say probably the most powerful thing about the solution is that coupled with the captured functionality. 

We've turned the SSL inspection on, and it is a nightmare. It doesn't mean it doesn't work, but it will turn your world upside down for weeks until you tune it and get it right. That's an across the board problem. It's not just TZ. That's TZ's, NSA's, etc. Wherever you're using their implementation of SSL, where you've got to implement a certificate on every machine. Once you even get past that it's still going to be particular and finicky. Banking sites are driven crazy by it every time we turn it on.

It is trying to lock down outbound traffic so tightly that you get to sites that are already very security conscious. It's just a battle to get the traffic through. Intentional traffic, the traffic you want to get through, seems to be a problem. It will stop almost everything. Too much in fact. I understand the concept. It's just a little threatening. We just had a client sign off on a 6650. Then we send them a scope of work for implementing it. We specifically put a note in there in enormous bold type: "Note does not include SSL-DPI implementation". That is additional. The client responded that  "That's the one piece I wanted you guys to do. I'm scared of it."

He said, "We're scared of it," and I told him, "We're scared of it too." I said, "I don't know how long it's going to take. And it's going to turn your universe upside down for a week to 10 days to maybe two weeks." He said that he heard that this would be the case. 

My fear is that the client thinks that we'll say it will take four hours and then, when it turns into 40, try to make us give them the submission for free. 

Even tiny environments, for example, 10 user environments, once you turn it on, you will spend days tuning it. The last one we did took us 22 hours to get it perfect. We learned our lesson. We slotted in four to eight hours to do it and it took us 16 to 20.

From a support perspective, if we're talking tech support I think Silver Partners, Gold Partners, Platinum, whatever level, should have a different number to call. End users can call tech support over at SonicWall if they've paid for support as part of their AGSS or whatever services they bought. The end-user can call, or we can call, however, I don't want to be calling the same line that an end user's calling. I don't want the same response time. I need a different level of expertise.

We've been a SonicWall dealer for 21 years approximately. We've been handling the solution since 1999. I personally didn't start using the solution until 2004.

Once you get past all the configuration issues, If you are on a rock-solid GA (Generally Available firmware), I don't know if I want to say it's bulletproof, however, the stability is really, really good. I don't sit and worry, thinking, "Oh, God. We know another one's going to fail today." We never think that way about that type of stuff. It's the odd time where we might get hardware failures or random reboots. We've had a couple of SMA units go sideways. Even SonicWall couldn't solve the problem. However, that said, it's rare.

There's a couple of different ways to answer the question of scalability. They've built the TZ line wide enough so that we've got enough of a selection to be able to fit most bandwidth and user count situations. It's never going to fit everybody and it's not meant to. It shouldn't. It is a little challenging to try to get one of the boxes to do full wire speed. I'm not so sure inside that box, at the price point, you're going to solve that problem.

That's why we sold the 6650. One client has got a one gig fiber line and they're in a school. On an NSA 3600, he can't get over 400 on it. I told him he never would. Some days I'd be surprised to get 400, depending on the user count. The TZ lineup is pretty good, however, I'm not so sure I'd use the word scalable. 

If what we mean by scalable is, "oh, well, I buy a 300 and I buy it for 10 users, but I can scale up to 30 users with that box," the answer to that is no you can't. If you ask "could I scale up to 25 users and move to 200 or 300 or 400 meg?" You can't. We've got somebody in that situation right now and we're quoting a box replacement because it just can't scale that way.

You can't necessarily scale on the appliance. You've got to get the right size. That's the easiest way to scale. If it's the right-sized appliance for the environment with some headroom then I think most situations users are going to be fine. There's going to be some issues where somebody cheaps out. For example, we worked with a law firm. They bought a TZ 300 because they didn't want to spend the money for the 500. Now they're going to have to spend the money for the 500 anyway because they need to scale up. 

I don't think they really separate support from line to line. Maybe if you get all the way up into supermassive issues they do. Between NSA and TZ, it's the same level of service that you get on the other end of the phone. To be quite honest, level one support is not sparkling. Level two is usually really good. Level three is usually a combination. You get to level three, and you're almost talking to development or a combination of a crew that's dealing with development and senior technical expertise. Those guys rarely fail us.

That's a typical support story. The level one guys will read the scripts and don't necessarily fix anything. We've already run through level one through three on our end with my staff. If they can't fix it, talking to a level one script reader is definitely not going to get it fixed. You should be able to bypass those guys if you're a reseller and a long-standing Silver Partner, like we are.

We've also used Cisco previously. A while back, we used to have Cisco as our primary choice, with SonicWall being our second. That changed when I came to the company in 2004, where SonicWall became our solution of choice. We've got 400 or 500 firewalls out there and we don't plan on changing over to anything else.

We're a Silver Partner.

I'm not an engineer. I was a field engineer for nine years a long, long time ago. However, I'm not typically the one that gets my fingers into stuff, and it would be my engineering and senior engineering staff that do that. That said, I can say that I don't think any of our guys have touched the virtual platform yet.

We use TZ and traditional NSA tech every day. That's our bread and butter.

The current version we're using right now is the 600 series, although we do still have some 350 series. 90% of what we use are Gen 6. They're either TZ 300, 400, 500, 600 or NSA 2600, 3600, 4600. 

We've got a smattering of 2650s that we've rolled out, which have been really, really good. Those are powerful units.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It doesn't warrant more than that. There's plenty of products I'd give a five to out there, however, for the quality of the product offering, I think an eight is a fair mark.

We are an MSP and Sonicwall partner and have installed virtually every model, from the TZ 150 during the old days, up to the new TZ 500, TZ 600s and NSA series. I've been using SonicWall for many years and it's still a major part of our solutions for many of our customers compared the optional product lines that we sell. I previous owned an IT firm for 30 years and recently merged with a larger organization where I focus on customer security and guidance. 

Sonic has been very progressive, continually updating their product-line and service offerings to stay current with, and ahead of the evolving security landscape. Again, they have consistently developed great solutions for both the SMB and enterprise market which has enable our support team to leverage their expertise with Sonicwall across our entire client base.

The most valuable features are the ease of setup, ease of management, integration, the VPN integration andnet extender which is part of their remote access, and functionality. Overall, they've been very effective and it's an affordable product. 

Not relating to this product specifically, but I think overall the company needs to think more broadly about security continuity across the entire security spectrum and integrate more security options with their solutions, like Cisco is doing. They need identity management products and DNS solutions to really complete the line of security. Because of the whole management system, there could also be improvement to their GMS, which is a system allowing you to manage an entire fleet of their firewalls via a central pane of glass. Today as more organizations as forced to working from home and the security perimeter is now the home, businesses need more affordable and scalable systems to manage and monitor numerous devices, more easily and push out updates through essential platforms.

I've been using this solution for over 15 years. 

I find it a very stable product and company. We really have not had problems with functionality or support. The ability to meet customer needs and implement security features, as well as just the reliability of the hardware itself has been very good over the years.

Scalability is good but once you buy the product itself, you're limited to what that particular device can deliver in terms of throughput and add-on features. You can easily add on additional functionality through various software/licensing, but it can't scale up more than the product's physical limitations. To address this, Sonicwall does have an upgrade program to enable organizations to capitalize on any investments made in training and management tools.

Obviously they have a dedicated support team for firewalls in general, unless you get to the bigger enterprise products. That's a different team. We find that whenever we have problems, we can get to somebody within a reasonable period of time.

We also provide CISCO solutions our clients where it may be a better fit.  The decision on which solutions to use can be influenced by either existing infrastructure and/or the experience and resources the customer may have inhouse.  Additionally, product feature-set and customer needs play the biggest role in determining what is the best fit for the customer.

Initial setup is quite straightforward via Sonicwall's GUI.

I can't talk about specifics, but purchasing the product is an upfront capital expense for maintenance as well as for the product itself so I can't amortize that down to a monthly or annual figure because the products are also very diverse in price depending on the usage or the package that you get. There are a very broad number of products within the TZ series from the very low end to the medium range. You've got many different models to choose from at different price points. On top of that, you've got the maintenance agreements that are relatively priced based on the product, so that is a variable too. I know that they are very competitive in pricing compared to other solutions on the market.

It's worth looking into this solution. It's a very competitive product in terms of pricing, performance and features. It's definitely worth evaluating, especially for small to medium size businesses, branch offices and home. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We are a solution provider and the SonicWall TZ firewall is one of the products that we implement for our clients. We also use it for our company.

We are familiar with the console and it is good to work with.

We are very happy with the throughput.

We have been facing issues with reporting. We use to have a free tool for reporting, but now there is a licensing fee. 

I have been using SonicWall TZ for the past eight years.

I would say that SonicWall TZ is stable, as we have not had many issues with it.

We have not needed to scale. 

We regularly have between 60 and 70 users in our company. Our customers for this product are small and medium-sized businesses.

We are very much happy with the support.

We do not often need technical support, but it is available from the local distributor or through the SonicWall portal.

In the future, we will be looking for a cloud-based replacement for this device.

This is a product that we recommend, and also suggest that people upgrade their old devices to this model.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This firewall makes up part of our security solution.

The most valuable features are security and technical support.

The pricing is of this solution is high and could be reduced to make it more competitive.

The monitoring is a little bit confusing.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for three years.

We have had no problems with stability.

This is a nice product in terms of scalability.

The technical support is good. If I call on the helpline then a technical person will assist us.

The initial setup is very easy. If a person knows some networking and about access levels then they will be able to configure it.

The price is high compared to some other solutions.

My license is about to expire and I am currently searching for a new solution. As we expand and open new offices, I am looking to change the whole setup.

In summary, this is a very good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I find the security we are able to do with the policies to be valuable. The monitoring is valuable as well.

Full monitoring obviously needs to be improved. We need full monitoring covered under the security licensing. The license should include reporting and monitoring. It shouldn't be an add-on, it should just go along with it. They should also make the monitoring easy to manage. Sometimes we need reports. We need some live monitoring decisions on how it's going down. We should take the live report from the SonicWall itself. I want to display the report under our monitor so I can monitor firewalls outside our area.

It's very stable and working fine.

The solution is very scalable. We don't plan to increase the usage right now. We have sufficient coverage. We don't plan future deployment.

I've had a good experience with technical support.

We haven't been using a different solution previously. We were using some antivirus software and some firewall software. We decided to implement SonicWall because it has good support and a good reputation in our area.

Initially, the setup is not so straightforward but we managed to make it work. Deployment was not so fast. It has initially taken two days, then after that, an hour or so. You only need one person for deployment.

Initially, we could only implement with the support from the reseller but then afterwards we handled it by ourselves.

I've seen great ROI since implementing it.

We considered many products, and afterwards, we found SonicWall to be the best solution.

We're using a variety of different models. The solution is very simple and works great and is working fine in the regions that are here.

I would rate the solution a nine out of 10. If it had better reporting functionality, I would give it a 10.

The primary use is for protecting the internet for client-to-search sites. We also use site-to-site VPN, and it segregates the traffic.

We are an integrator and a solution provider. We implement this and other solutions for our customers.

The most valuable features are the UTM, site-to-site VPN, and client-to-site VPN. The site-to-site VPN allows us to connect between the branches. We also use the global VPN client and the local VPN client.

I find most of the features are useful.

In some places, we face problems, especially in the client VPN portion. There are certain places where we are not able to contact. We don't have the lease line, static IP addresses, or dynamic IP addresses. This is an area of concern.

Another thing which I don't like about SonicWall is that it tries to bypass the resellers. That is not good. SonicWall suddenly calls the client, goes to them directly. That is not a good thing.

They should consider working a bit more on their ransomware application.

The solution, once it's configured properly, is unbreakable. The only thing is that on the dynamic DNS we are facing some problems. Fortinet is doing much better, compared to SonicWall because they have their own data center and the dynamic DNS is working better. It provides a much better and more stable VPN. This is dependent upon third-party servers. If their server is down then we're finished. We depend upon them, and we have to wait for some time. This is a big problem.

Scalability-wise, with most of the mid-range solutions, there is no scalability. If you want to upgrade, you have to upgrade it. One good thing about SonicWall is the modular nature of the product. That means you can buy whatever part of the solution you want. That is one beauty of it. If you don't want IPS, you don't have to buy the IPS. That option, that's much better than anybody else.

I would rate technical support a seven out of ten.

We did use a previous solution, but the client wanted to switch. 

The initial setup was complex. It is not so straight forward. It's not tough like others, but still, they can improve on it.

Deployment takes, depending upon the concentration, anywhere from half a day to two days, depending upon the password you need to deal with for all the configuration. If everything is not the same, like you have UTM features and all those things, it may go up to one day, depending upon the configuration. If the training is also added into it, two, three days including training and assistance.

We are a reseller. I've been doing this for three years. I set up most of the firewalls, and we work with the company and also we have direct end users. We work as a consultant for other IT companies.

For deployment, in terms of staff, the maximum you need, depending on the project, would be two to three people. Sometimes it will be enough even to use one or two people. A lot of that depends on requirements. 

License renewals come in around $35,000 to $45,000. That's the retail price.

When it comes to marketing this type of solution to customers, we try to focus more on the Fortinet side. However, if they are already invested in a solution like SonicWall then we continue with the same thing.

If the client is using SonicWall, we use SonicWall as well, for reliability. If they're using Fortinet, we try to use the same thing and try to minimize the cost, that's how we work.

In terms of advice, I would say that you have to look at the entire solution. There are certain things which SonicWall cannot do. SonicWall doesn't support ADSL because of security reasons but sometimes you need it, you want a little bit, you need to have that option to be working. Unfortunately, that option is not there, but sometimes you need it. Therefore, you have to evaluate the requirement.

Also, sometimes the quality is not so good. We have trouble sometimes with SonicWall. Unfortunately, sometimes the normal way of getting into the remote connectivity doesn't work because it's on a data correction. Or we only need to get into another specific connection. SonicWall doesn't support this connection. If we can't access the VPN we can't establish a check with the VPN. There was an incident like that and we had to take another break and then finish the product. You have to evaluate all this and then implement it. It's not possible to just not do something because SonicWall cannot. If it's for security you have to do it, there is no other option.

I would rate this solution between a six and seven out of ten. More work can be done on the servers, and the VPN areas also. It's a little bit confusing on the route side. I think the routes need to be cleaner, better. 

Most of the features are valuable. They give good protection to my network and support it. It has a good facility with side to side VPN and everything. I use it in all my offices.

I currently have two issues from SonicWall. One issue is that the IP is not the public IP. Sometimes it moves to an alternate source and I have to refresh the new IP then we can proceed.

The solution is stable. I like it. The TZ600 is good. I've had no issues or problems. We have about 100 users at the moment.

It's scalable.

Technical support is not good. If we send complaints to the SonicWall support they don't provide good support for us. You can't call them by phone.

It's easy to install. I don't remember exactly how long the deployment took.

My advice would be if you're buying this product, you will have to look up the security design. There are not a lot of firewalls up on the market, but I've found SonicWall to be reliant.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. It's good.

We use it for a variety of businesses and schools.

Its ease of installation has improved my organization. That's what I do most. I install the firewalls.

I don't have anything that I would say needs improving at the moment. The small business line has less PPS throughput and that's what you're going to lose on when you use WatchGuard. So they need to improve the throughput of the firewall in the small business line.

Easy to explain : 

                                 WatchGuard T70 vs SonicWall TZ600 
Firewall Throughput :       4Gbps          vs      1.9Gbps
Price :                             610€            vs       973€

I've only ever had one problem. I have a bank that has two NSAs in high availability. The only time I had a problem was with the high availability from the update. That's the only time. And that was last month. I did an update. I disabled the high availability and we reset it, the firewall, and installed the config again. And updated it one by one.

I have no negative impression of the scalability.

I haven't tried technical support yet, so I haven't needed support yet on anything.

Moved to new Employer.

The initial setup is straightforward. I deploy at least one solution a month, to different sites. You only need one person for deployment.

I did the implementation myself.

The pricing is where you might lose to WatchGuard now. I'm looking into moving some parts over to WatchGuard because they are on the small business side. But if you compare the TZ300 and 400 series against WatchGuard series, they are the same, but there is a price difference between them.

I wasn't a part of any decision making in terms of options. 

We use a variety of models, from the TZ300, up to the NSA 2600. For businesses, I recommend TZ400.

I would rate the solution 8 out of 10. I would rate WatchGuard itself 10, because I really like that product, and the ease of use. And when I say ease of use, I mean I know that product in and out. And it's very easy to set up external sites with the system management tool that comes free with WatchGuard.

SonicWall TZ is a UTM. We use it for unified threat management. It helps us a lot, although the software needs to be installed on a better machine to do the analysis.

The log analyzer in SonicWall TZ is something that they need to improve upon. With other firewalls, they have built-in storage. We also need to retain the logs for analysis.

With SonicWall TZ, these features are less when we compare it to other solutions.

The features that we have found most valuable in SonicWall TZ are the intrusion and brute force attack prevention.

This product has room for improvement in the cloud version. Also, the support could be better. Otherwise, SonicWall TZ is good for us.

The additional feature I would like to see included in the next release of SonicWall is a better analyzer. That would be more helpful. Then people will stay with SonicWall.

We like the product. SonicWall TZ is stable and serving the purpose required.

The scalability of SonicWall TZ is good. It's easy-to-use and straightforward. One or two admins should be sufficient for user management.

The SonicWall TZ support is okay overall but could be improved in many ways.

We were using Cisco previously.

The initial setup was straightforward. Deployment here is quite simple. We were using Cisco products previously.

SonicWall TZ firewalls are very easy to use. It's a next-generation firewall. Compare products in terms of the features. With SonicWall TZ, we get more value for the money.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate this solution an eight. The analysis meter and other important features are still missing.

We use the solution as a next-generation firewall, protecting our websites, our studio, protecting our network from attacks and also content filtering for our youth, our users on the network, and also a gateway anti-virus.

The technical support for the end user was reduced because the wipe action was already controlled. Also, the gateway antivirus prevented any virus from getting onto PCs or laptops. The administration of our network is very efficient.

I've found content censoring to be the most useful.

There can be an improvement in analysis and reporting. We need enhancement on the reporting side.

The stability is very nice. We have around fifty people using the solution.

The technical support is very good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used administrative documents from the website of SonicWall. There was no need for anything else. Deployment took one or two hours, but we had a planning session first. Without that, implementation would take a long time.

Licensing costs have been around $2,000. There are no other costs above the standard licensing fees.

I would recommend this solution, it's a good solution. I would rate it 8 out of 10.

We use SonicWall TZ to write rules for our network firewall. You can use the matrix. It's easy to use.

We like the graphic user interface on SonicWall TZ. We use matrix principles to improve our organization.

The feature we found most valuable in SonicWall TZ is that it is user-friendly for an administrator.

We would like to improve the rules configuration in SonicWall TZ. Sometimes the rules don't work. We cannot prove that the rules don't work. Maybe they can improve that. 

Sometimes you write a rule in SonicWall and users are not able to use YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram. Users can see YouTube or Instagram for a while, but five minutes later, they cannot visit the sites.

The additional feature I would like to see included in the next release of this solution are analyzers. They can put it in the software, i.e which users are in which sites.

We need to see which users are on which sites simultaneously. In this edition, it's hard to see. You can just see the IP address. FortiGate has 40 analyzers. Maybe SonicWall can put it in the license for at least three.

We have shifted to SonicWall on our customers' sites and sometimes they're not reliable or stable. I don't see SonicWall TZ as stable. It happened after the Dell company bought SonicWall. I see this stability problem rarely, not often.

SonicWall TZ is scalable. The scalability is very good.

We don't need any technical support. We don't have any tickets. We don't have any calls. Customer support is not a problem.

The initial setup is not complex. It's easy. It's about the scale of the company. If we have just 15 employees, the setup takes almost one hour. If the company has 100 employees, it is three hours.

It's the user management that the company wants. They just want to let people go to the internet. If there are no rules or no constraints, it does not take time. It's easy to deploy.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product a nine. You can always improve some things.

Our primary use for SonicWall TZ is for a network firewall and for threat protection.

With SonicWall TZ, they should make the interface useful for the user. This needs to happen very soon because now the interface is not sufficient. 

When I need to apply some features, I get many tasks and too many to create objects.

SonicWall TZ is stable.

Our IT administrator is just one person, me.

I don't get the support that I need from SonicWall.

I didn't use any other solutions previously.

From one to ten, I would rate SonicWall TZ a seven for the end user experience. Other products have unlimited end users, but in SonicWall TZ there are just two admin users.

Our primary use case for this product is for remote access to smart-building solutions that we implement.

I have found this solution to be easier to use when compared to other products, such as those offered by Cisco.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is easy to install and maintain.

The support for this product has to be improved.

With what I use, I don't really require any other features.

We have not had any issues with the stability of this product. We have additional sites, aside from the smart-building, and we haven't encountered any hardware failure.

In terms of scalability, it is scalable to a certain extent. The downside is that one of the models has fiber-optic connections, but the other platforms do not support it.

While the product is fine, I find that there is no support. We purchased a license renewal and have not been able to apply it, even though I have raised this relatively simple issue with them. The lack of support is having me look into other solutions to replace SonicWall.

The setup is very easy compared to other platforms, where with Cisco or Huawei you have to move from one application to another. I did not have the training, but for me, it was really easy to use. The implementation took a few hours. 

While every site is different, based on what I have implemented it takes just a single engineer to deploy and maintain this solution.

The product pricing is relatively good, compared to other products, including the licenses. However, if you do not get support then the cost of the outlay is not really relevant.

We use other platforms including those offered by Cisco and Huawei. I had been looking into small firewall solutions that are capable of handling fiber-optic connections, rather than just Copper. I didn't want to pay for the premium platform just to use fiber-optic connections. However, the capability is not there on smaller platforms, including this one.

We chose this solution because it is easier to use than others.

Currently, SonicWall is our primary solution. To me, it can no longer be the primary because if I need support then I may not get it. With other products, it is quite simple.

For any new projects that I'll be working on, I will not be using SonicWall. This is simply a business decision that is based on my experience. I am responsible for the design, implementation, maintenance, and moving forward with the customer. If I am not happy then I cannot implement the solution because it will not help me in the future.

To be honest, when it comes to integration I would rate this product a nine out of ten. But, because of the lack of support, overall, I can only rate it one out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is to protect our network.

This product has a really good algorithm to find and deal with any kind of malware that comes into our network. We have had no incidents at all of any kind of piracy, corruption, etc.

In terms of features, I find that this product has good configurability. It also does its job really well.

I find that the user interface for the product configuration needs improvement. It is not intuitive when you are trying to figure out how to get something done.

An additional feature that I would like to see is reporting that includes metrics to give me more information about the number of viruses that it has actually detected and interrupted.

I have found the stability of this product to be excellent. It is very stable, and nothing goes wrong. It just works.

I imagine that the product is very scalable, but what we are using is probably one-tenth of its capacity. We have around fifty users.

Their technical support is excellent.

We did not use a different solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took us under ten minutes to deploy, from taking it out of the box, plugging it in, and having it up and running.

Beyond this initial setup, everything is automatic and it does not require maintenance.

I handled the installation myself, with some help from their technical support.

I imagine that we have seen a return on our investment, but it is invisible. It is a firewall and we haven't suffered any loss. Had we, then it would have been a lot more than the cost of the device and the license. As far as I'm concerned it pays for itself instantly.

The pricing was a factor for us, and we felt that the price was good.

The licensing cost is on an annual basis, and there are no additional costs.

I did some research on other solutions, and I found that they were all pretty much similar. I was having a very hard time choosing an alternative, so I went with what we already had in place.

My advice to others who are implementing this solution is to take advantage of their technical support.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This was for a small business with roughly twelve 5x8 employee users. This is not a healthcare client but they do value their security.

We bought a T115 which was working fine, but when we went to renew the contract, it jumped to twice the amount. I asked why and was told the two-year-old model was being discontinued. My option was to upgrade to a SOHO or TZ. Not only was this a waste of money, but it also made me look bad.

SonicWall does have the best ease of use I've encountered in my limited experience. It's easy to set up.

The hardware is outdated and very slow. They are far behind Sophos and even FortiGate when it comes to hardware.

Firewall protection from the internet.

It allows us to be a little bit less worried about what's coming in and it does the same for our clients too.

It's sophisticated enough without breaking the bank.

I would like them to make the interface a little bit easier to use so you can find out where in the heck you're going instead of having to go to 15 different places to get something installed.

It's very stable.

For the small clients that we're using it for it has quite a bit of capability. We don't need anything more.

Technical support is very good. Sometimes it takes a little bit of time to get to them, but once you get to them they're pretty good.

Important criteria, when selecting a vendor, are that the product has

• to be one that my small clients can afford
• the capability of doing what needs to be done
• good quality and good technical support

It is a multi-setting tool. We have about 50 users at any point in time. So far, we haven't had any problems.

We use the content filter and the SSL VPN: 

• The content filter has increased our productivity, especially during working hours. We don't have users spending time on social media during working hours. This means productivity is good. 
• Then, when the guys are offsite, they are still able to work without taking any breaks due to the SSL VPN that we use.

We use the content filter quite a lot because it's an office setting. During working hours, we like to censor the sites users can visit so it increases productivity. Therefore, the content filter has been good for us.

We have been using the SSL VPN as well, because most of our people do travel. They go for rest and recuperation approximately every six weeks, and they are offsite for about 10 days. More often than not, they need to login, or get onto shared drives, to do some work.

SonicWall Analyzer needs a different license. It would be good if Analyzer would be part of the stock license, so even if a layperson is getting the device, he or she doesn't forgets about ordering the Analyzer because it's already there. 

This is what we realized that over the last few months. We tried to pull some analysis, and without the Analyzer, we couldn't. Now, we are in the process of buying the additional license. It would have been better embedded from the beginning.

It is very stable with no issues. The firewall has been up for the past 35 days non-stop. It's performed great. It has performed as it should perform.

Scalability is fine. Our needs do not vary regarding scalability. They are constant. We have about 50 users.

We used it on one occasion. It was quite straight forward. We have a 24/7 support service option. The people who provided support were very efficient.

The main company has been using SonicWall for awhile. When we setup our local office in Ghana, we decided to use what was being utilized in the main office for the local office.

The initial setup was very straightforward. The wizard was helpful. It took less than an hour and a half to set it up and have at least the basic functions apparent. The primary set-up took less than two hours, then we were up and running.

SonicWall has authorized distributors in our country. They have about two or three distributors in the country, so it makes it a bit easier. What we do is to request a quotation from these distributors, then we do a value for money analysis and see which one of them is giving us a competitive price.

Getting licenses in our country, Ghana, is not easy. Though, once we have them, adding them is quick (about a day).

Overall, the cost is great.

No, because we chose SonicWall because they are on our main company's vendor.

We did decide to go with SonicWall TZ instead of SonicWall NSA, because the SonicWall NSA is bigger and more costly.

It is used as firewalls are normally used and performance has been outstanding. We've been very happy with it. 

It has provided the necessary security, that's what it's there for.

I really don't know. I'm not really an IT person, per se, but I would say number one is the protection available, and then ease of use and flexibility. Those would be the top three.

I'm not an IT guy. What I will say is that the market seems to be going to a cloud-supported, new generation of firewall products. I think that's probably going to be important to us, the next time around.

It has been, to the best of my knowledge, trouble-free.

We haven't used tech support, at least, not that I'm aware of. We outsourced all of our IT stuff. They may have used it, but I'm not aware of anything.

We've used nothing but SonicWall, up until now.

I would say the most important criterion, when selecting a vendor, is probably the technology utilized.

The one we've got now is five years old. The next generation with the cloud-based signature and operation... I know SonicWall has what they call Capture, which is advanced threat protection type stuff. I think that is probably what we're going to be looking at next.

There are certainly a lot of options out there, and there are a lot of good options. I would say, stick with a name brand, whether it's SonicWall, or Check Point, or Palo Alto, or Cisco - any of those. You need to stick with a big name brand that is at the forefront of things.

The main features are support and security.

We have several locations, each with a VPN to a central office. SonicWall provides each location with its own security and provides our company with the ability to centralize our servers so they can provide applications to all the locations and users.

The SonicWall is somewhat misunderstood due to its being a lot more complicated to use and set up. A simpler interface would help this issue.

We have been using this solution for four years.

There were no stability issues.

I would give technical support and rating of 8/10. Most of the time support is with foreign staff and can be hard to understand.

We have not used a different solution since I have been with the company.

The initial setup was somewhat complex. The interface can be a little hard to get used to and understand.

It is not cheap, but it is probably one of the best secure firewalls. You get what you pay for!

Shop around and make sure you need this level of security. Have lots of time to get to know this device because the rewards are plenty.

Easy to use GUI
VPN (Site-to-Site and Client-to-Site)
Gateway Security
Built in A/V options
Content Filtering

The site-to-site VPN allows for consistent communication between sites.

Upgrading the OS is easy and they alert you when an upgrade is available.

Content filtering and gateway security has help reduce visiting unwanted websites and attacks.

Logging helps track down issues bandwidth hogs.

I would love to see a more detailed logs and filtering.

Wireless versions have week signal strength in comparison to other wireless routers.

5 years

Absolutely no issues with stability. I try to reboot them every 6 months to a year for good measure, but not because I have to.

Most of the TZ series are for small to mid size office. I would not recommend these for large to enterprise solutions. I do use one currently for a small community school of 250 students with no issues.

I have not worked with their customer service.

Excellent customer service. Very knowledgeable.

This has been a great solution and have never bothered trying anything else. I do have a few Cisco ASA installs, however the cost is a bit higher and more complex to implement.

Setup is quite straight forward. There are some deeper more complex setups that can be implemented. These more complex setups can be achieved through their support or a quick google search.

I personally implemented the solution.

I like to think that the TZ series has the best bang for the buck. Full of features and options that you need to control security with out breaking the bank. Perfect solution for smaller businesses.

Sonic Wall has an a la carte pricing model. There are many features and options that you may not need or want and therefore no need to pay for them

The only problem with this model is that it does now use a yearly subscription model. Although the router itself may be less expensive than other competitors, you may spend more in subscriptions.

Product support will require a yearly maintenance.

I only work with SonicWALL TZ and Cisco ASA.

Sonic Wall OS is very easy to use but still has all the options and features you need to implement your security.

Easy to configure. Good for any organization.

Always saves time for any implementation. IT guys never have lots of time for R&D in some live box.

Content filtering, Load balancing. Bandwidth management.

5 years.

Never.

Once.

No issues.

7/10

9/10

Technical support and it wasn't fit for our organization.

Never, it's so easy.

Fortigate

The MSSP partnership program is valuable, but is still too expensive. The devices are not as good as others, but the price and business model are attractive.

We were focused on traditional service provider model, so if one customer ask us to implement an NGFW, we look for the best solution for the client within the market. After getting in contact with Dell Spain, they proposed us to become MSP partner, so we consider to improve our business model to MSSP model.

Support is not as good as should be. An NGFW is supposed to use all the functions, so they must be considered as a must. If you switch on all of them, the system is working under the spected figures...

I have done a benchmark for around two months. The 500 is still working after benchmarking. We were looking for a solution for a law firm to be able to communicate in a safer mode.

The figures are not valid when you active all the functionalities. So, an office with only 15 workstations is not able to work with a TZ500, which is supposed to be for up to 40 workstations.

They are stable if you are not very demanding, if so, they become unstable.

I don't think they are designed to scale, but I haven't tested it.

6/10 - they are not providing the same support level as before.

I haven't used it, but they have contacted me several times to offer their help.

I was looking for the best solution for my customer and I found a better one after implementing SonicWALL. I have been a user, administrator and certified architect of Cisco, Checkpoint, StoneSoft, Fortinet, Sophos, Juniper, and most of them are focused for massive environments, not for SMEs.

It was straightforward, but I had to make a few changes to adapt it. However, every installation is different so, you need to adapt.

It was an in-house implementation.

I didn't choose this product.

Consider Sophos solution or maybe Fortinet if you don't need the Sophos extra features.

The affordability.

It's provided security and a VPN connection.

GUI configurations and menus are not intuitive, thus making it difficult to identify dependent configurations completion.

I've used it for two years.

In most cases no issues, except a few times when the External Interface would not take a public dynamic IP address.

There were some issues, when the firewall would work for six months straight, and then cause VPN slowness, which was resolved right after a reboot. Not many companies allow themselves to have such downtime.

No issues encountered.

Service is great.

Service is great.

We previously used a mix of WatchGuard and Cisco firewalls. We switched because Dell offered an affordable, stable, flexible option that is easier to deploy and configure.

• All feautures related to deep packet inspection (IPS, application control, anti-malware, anti-spyware)
• Single Sign On
• Web content filter
• VPN

We sell the product, and we have a lot of business for it, and our customers are happy with the solution.

• Advance malware analysis (sandbox)
• Reporting

I've been using the NSA, E-Class and Supermassive models over the last 12 years.

If it's planned correctly, there will be no problems.

Sometimes there are issues.

No issues encountered.

It's good.

It's medium.

We previously used CheckPoint and switched because it was expensive.

It was straightforward.

We are a vendor team.

It normally comes within eight months for us.

• The management GUI is easy to configure, friendly to use, manage, and troubleshoot
• IPSec/SSL VPN is easy to configure
• It offers granular level of control for IPS and firewalls with advanced application control features
• You have one console to manage different aspect of the product
• It provides a high level of security
• It is easy to integrate into an existing network
• It provides a high level of throughput

• The DPI SSL Inspection needs a lot of improvements
• Dell SonicWALL doesn’t offer virtual UTM models which is a very fast growing area in the world

I've used it for three years.

No issues encountered.

The firewall does crash and/or unexpectedly reboots.

Generally speaking no, but sizing correctly is main challenge, and that is why you need to make sure you select the right model.

The hold time is very long, and they need to hire more people to handle the huge number of incoming calls.

Dell SonicWALL tech support is excellent, and they meet the evolving needs of their clients.

I had a chance to work with Fortinet and Netasq. and am also currently exploring CheckPoint. It was a part of my job when I joined different companies, and each with had partnership with these products.

Most of the deployments were straightforward, whether as a standalone unit or as part of an HA setup.

It was an in-house team who consulted with the vendor for complex installations.

It delivers an immediate ROI with a low cost of managing and maintaining multiple security solutions, it increases productivity, and improves security.

No other options were evaluated.

Dell SonicWALL UTM is strong in the UTM space with great support. They continue to innovate and deliver a solid UTM product with high throughput speed. Added to this, Dell partners are pleased with their SonicWALL partnership as well as the products features and excellent support.

Configuration of firewall policies is very easy. I would say its interface gave me the ability to step into firewall and routing. Also I find using the SonicWALL for Site to Site VPN's is extremely easy, in particular, if you want to have VPN fail-over. HA is another good feature. Only because its the most competitive in the market as they give you an HA unit at a reduced cost.

Being a simple to deploy product means you can quickly and effectively implement a secure network

Since the acquisition of SonicWALL by Dell, I have not seen much in the way of improvements. Probably the key area to improve are as follows

• Better Mail Security (Spam in particular)
• Some improvement in Application Detection and reporting
• Its reporting tool (Viewpoint/GMS) is probably still in need of much improvement.

The death for SonicWall for us unfortunately is the Dell acquisition. You end up competing with Dell for the sale of SonicWALL and then anything else IT related. They don't work with IT partners.

I've used SonicWALL NSA for five years.

No issues encountered with deployment.

The only stability issues I have encountered is the reporting tools' ViewPoint/GMS. I have seen those virtual appliances fail to the point of needing to rebuild.

The NSA side of things is extremely stable as is the HA functionality.

You need to know the environment to ensure the unit you deploy suits. One negative about the SonicWALLS is the spec sheets for their numbers seem to be quite "optimistic". I used to divide by two to get an idea.

I haven't dealt with customer support.

Pretty good, they are more than happy to get into the details of any issues and assist in resolving them.

This became the de-facto firewall for us.

Initial out of the box setup is very simple as it provides wizards to get you up and running and you can build your firewall on top of those wizards.

When SonicWall was SonicWALL we dealt with a very good vendor team. Since going to Dell it just went downhill.

We have seen many cases where installing the SonicWall has helped with security threats or just for safe user browsing

Setup cost is the hardware, configuration and installation. Once its installed, you don't need to refer to it much.

Just map out the connection requirements.