Our company is a partner and reseller of the solution. We lease, sell, and license boxes for our clients. Use cases are rather unique and not uniform.
We provide support for a few SMBs around the country.
Some customers are heavy users, with involved configurations, and the setup may include high availability configured with two boxes.
Others use it as just a gateway between their infrastructure and the internet with very simple configurations that don't include web filtering.
Active directory integration domain is used for some, but not all customers. Common items include DNATs and SSL VPN. Most customers use VPNs, and site-to-site connections (REDs or IPsec).
We also use virtualized UTMs for LABs.
The firewall itself is very strong and provides great security for the internet. Some clients don't use any other special feature but all customers depend on the firewall as a secure gateway.
A lot of thinking went into the user experience because the UTM interface is streamlined, good, and feels like a web application. It does have hiccups here and there but effectively treats everything as an object. You can quickly see where objects are being used or referred to and change them.
The UTMs are end-of-life so the web interface is not top-notch and needs more speed. There is still support for the UTMs so they are the best we have right now.
The solution needs better captive portals and they could have faster UIs.
An improvement to the transparent proxy would help. A user should be able to open a webpage and be redirected to the captive portal like with WIFI or XGs. From there, the user should be able to log in with a username and password to gain internet access. Many clients migrate to XG due to this missing feature.
I have been actively using the solution for a some time.
The stability is pretty good and better than XG. We don't have any issues directly related to the solution.
Stability is rated a ten out of ten.
The solution scales pretty well. Even with a heavy load, the solution shows no issues.
Scalability is rated an eight out of ten.
Technical support is not stellar. We have some good experiences and some not so good experiences. We do not have a lot of support requests for the solution.
Support is rated a seven out of ten.
The setup is straightforward.
We implement the solution for customers. We have a specialist, an architect, and four analysts who handle implementations and maintenance.
I recommend you complete the solution's training because it is pretty good. Rely on the documentation and any tech training available.
I rate the solution a nine out of ten.