Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform Reviews

We use it for MPLS connectivity, VPNs, etc.

I like all the features. We utilize different LAN, bandwidth transferring, bandwidth balancing, and mappings. We use it as a centralized solution, and use the same product at all our locations.

There are limitations when you connect from multiple locations. It does not work as expected.

If you have more than 400 users, then it will choke. It will not perform as expected.

I would like them to stabilize the wireless solution and have more security features in the next release.

I've been using Versa FlexVNF for almost three years.

The stability is okay. That is, it's stable when you have fewer locations. When it comes to multiple locations, I don't recommend this device.

It is scalable, but there might be some issues with scalability if you don't have an additional device.

On a scale from one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I would rate technical support at six. They are knowledgeable, but they do not respond quickly; there have been many delays.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy, and I would rate it at 4.5 on a scale from one to five, with one being difficult and five being easy.

One person can handle the maintenance of Versa FlexVNF because hardly any maintenance is needed.

Price wise, it's more expensive than is the competition. I would give pricing a rating of three out of five.

Overall, I would rate Versa FlexVNF at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We primarily use the solution for SD-WAN with the built-in firewall, the NG firewall.

They are pretty transparent on every layer of the networking to build the SD-WAN. Troubleshooting is easier due to that. They, it seems like, do not try to cover or wrap the SD-WAN into my interface, which would make it difficult to troubleshoot. They really open up every part of the technology so that if there is an issue, it would be easier to troubleshoot.

It's very powerful, especially for engineering teams. And yet, they manage also to keep it from being too complex.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It has very good reliability.

The product is scalable. 

The interface could be simpler. There have been improvements over time, however, it could be improved further. While nothing is lacking in terms of information, if they could make it simpler for non-technical users, it would be easier to understand and could be used by more people. 

We started using the solution about a year ago.

It's stable. The cloud basically is only for orchestration. Once the equipment has been set up it's going to be running well, and quite independently. Even if there is an update in the cloud,  for example, the path to the cloud is gone, it will still suffice. It would still run. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is pretty good, actually. The internal processing is light. It could scale much bigger than compared to the other SD-WAN solutions that I'm aware of. Even the small unit actually could scale for 1,000 branches already. 

They're helpful, however, we actually rarely use them. It's almost never happened, in terms of having any issues. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Mostly, customers rely on the engineering team. They just start to run it once it is deployed. Normally, the setup is headed by the engineering team.

The deployment really depends on how fast the rollout would be needed. The deployment is easy, however, it depends on the location. We could deploy a few units a day, for example, as it all can be handled and secured on the cloud from the orchestrator. We could easily deploy 20 a week unless we are talking about moving to different locations.

The value of SD-WAN is that it can cover a wide area. Therefore, in most cases, the delay is actually about the delivery of the unit to the location.

Once the hardware arrives at the location and the network connectivity from the provider is ready, it would take just minutes to turn it up. The readiness of the place, the readiness of the connection, and any delays in the delivery due to the courier or the shipper all play a role in how long the deployment will be.

Normally we have two or three people handle deployment.

Usually, we deploy to small branches of ten to 30, depending on the office size.

The ROI is not really calculated. I would say the experience of the user improves a lot. This means that always come combining the MPLS plus the internet, for example, users would enjoy bigger bandwidth. Their application or file transfer is faster. It's not only about something that could be quantified. The better experience on the user side is definitely something we can see, however.

Price-wise, it's quite fair with the list of capabilities on offer. If we use the features a lot that enables the NG firewall for SMO. It's much cheaper than having a separate SD-WAN unit and an external firewall. All the package features if all put in together and enabled, make it more competitive compared to the other brands. 

The price can be negotiable. The cost depends on the size. It includes firewall features. It includes tech support from the vendor's side. The licensing system with the subscription, it's all included.

I really like the option to include the NG firewall due to the fact that, in total, that would be cheaper compared to having an external firewall and the SD-WAN unit.

We're a Versa partner.

I don't recall which version we are using. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I would recommend a field test to new users. Don't just look at the paper. Try to experience it in the live network. Most of the time, that could really make a difference. If customers would like to know about it, the better way is to have a proof of concept or live demo in their network running for a certain period, with their network running on top of this SD-WAN as that's what really actually makes the difference. They could see the improvement firsthand. They could see that the bandwidth is increased. Or find out if it really could replace the MPLS with the internet. Those are the things that on paper, sometimes we could not really feel or know. 

We use 21.2.1, which is the latest version of the solution.

The solution is already deployed and we use it for our customers.

The solution has different uses, depending on the customer, some using it for firewall protection and others only in its SD-WAN role. Different customers have different subscriptions.

We are talking about a managed solution. Say, for example, one has broadband linkage and 12X link. A separate structure would be required for these links. With our solution, we can create the traffic on both the links and it is auto-managed. We can select the best route. This way, if it seems that broadband link has dropped, the link will automatically be shifted to our next best route. There would be no need to deploy a firewall in it, as it is already embedded in our solution. This saves our customers from having to deploy the firewall. 

The security should be improved. 

The support could be more knowledgeable. 

While I joined this organization just two months ago, my company has been using Versa FlexVNF for around a year. 

The solution is stable and suitable. We have been using it for a number of years. 

The solution is scalable.

The tech support does not have familiarity with its product. They could be more knowledgeable. 

Installation took about an hour.

Only a single available person is needed, someone who will provide us with the internet over the site, the branch being used for the deployment. Otherwise, we need nothing at all, the internet at the branch sufficing for us to handle everything else on our own. 

We provide subscriptions for our customers on a yearly, not monthly, basis. 

In our organization, we lend support to almost 300 different customers. This is in contrast to Fortigate, in which the number we are talking about involves 100 customers. 

We do not use the product. We are its providers. 

I would definitely recommend this product to others. An SD-WAN solution is appropriate for everybody. 

I rate Versa FlexVNF as a six out of ten. 

We use the solution for SD-WAN as well as SD-WAN plus security NGFW, UTM. We use the combination of these three as they relate to multi-sites. 

I especially like the flexibility of being able to choose the license based on customer application requirements. Also, when it comes to the hardware, certain support or different switches will apply. However, the software's flexibility does come with a price for the customer. There is flexibility when it comes to upgrading to a higher bandwidth or license, as well as when combining with the security solution, NGFW and UTM. 

To sum up, the flexibility is a great feature. 

I don't have issues with the hardware, as the requisite capacity is visible in the data sheets. All the details in the data sheets are accounted for. But, I find myself confused when it comes to combining this with the software. I have not come across documentation on the Versa website which would provide information about the parameters for selecting the appropriate license. For this we are assisted by the solution's design engineer and the Versa team. I do what I can as a project manager and make the best suggestions I am capable of concerning the competition. 

Future releases should contain AI for the voice feature. SSL VPN is lacking in the solution. I wish to see this in the near future. 

I have been with Tata Communications for approximately two years respect this product. I have made a good contribution to the onboarding of Versa FlexVNF and the development of SD-WAN products in Tata Communications. As I have been working with Spectra on the same product, I can say that I have been doing so with the solution for this length of time. 

I have not encountered bugs in the solution. 

I have not come across limitations in the solution. I have worked on the 300 series, the 700 series and the 1000 series, but there are no limitation within the box. The important thing is that the combination of the box and the license provide the correct solution. That's what comes with this. Otherwise, we must consider the hardware and configuration details in respect of the throughput authorization when it comes to 100 Mbps for NGFW or 400 for UTM. These are especially present in terms of the configuration of the box against the bandwidth.

As I am in product management, I have not had occasion to contact technical support. This would be in the purview of team delivery, support, provisioning or engineering teams. Occasionally, technical account managers also provide assistance. 

The installation process was complex. Templates are there and we can pretty much put those straight into the Versa director and push them for other sites. A single template spokes other templates. This would involve a change in bandwidth or configuration. We make the changes on the template and push for those particular sites. So, when it comes to Versa director and analytics, it's pretty simple.

While I cannot provide too much commentary on the price, I feel it to be fair for the moment. 

I should note that Citrix or Cisco Meraki are coming out with more competitive prices. The comparative pricing can pose an issue for us, as we are the ones who supply the solution. While we make adjustments to the solution, the majority of our customers have right templates and feel that they are able to get the same SD-WAN solution that fulfills our requirements for, perhaps, a price of 20 to 30 percent less than what we provide on Versa. 

My advice is that a person come with data that meets his needs, which would provide hima good basis for selecting the correct sizing.  

I rate Versa FlexVNF as an eight-and-a-half out of ten, owing to the issues concerning the size of the box configurations and licensing. But, this rating also reflects the flexibility of choice afforded by the solution, as well as its futuristic approach that allows one to upgrade it to the next level of technology. It is very close to the next level of technology and one can actually upgrade his solution anytime over the cloud and to the central processor without the need to visit the field. That's simplicity.

We are a service provider, and we provide WAN services to various enterprise clients. We were among the  first three CSP's to launch SDWAN services in India with the help of Versa. Later on, we adopted Cisco and Fortinet platforms.

It is very easy to deploy. The GUI interface is really good, and the security features are also very good. It is also stable and scalable, and their support is also good.

SASE is the next big thing that is coming up, and it needs to be developed in Versa. This is the only thing that needs to be adapted very quickly by Versa.

With the pandemic going on, I would like to see more features for working from home. They have launched Versa Secure Access (VSA), but it is currently immature. They need to tighten it up for work from home and SD-WAN concept.

I have been using this solution for three-plus years.

I don't see any issues on the stability front. We have been using this product for three-plus years, and I did not see any issues related to stability.

It is pretty much scalable. Currently, it is on around 5,000 of branch location, and I don't see any problem on this front. We are providing services to enterprise customers, and we will be increasing the capacity of Versa.

Currently, approximately 1,000 plus employees regularly use Versa for various teams , and perform actvities such as  as deployment, assurance life cycle management, engineering, and PoC.

There are no issues with their support. Their  TAC support is very good at identifying and resolving problems. 

When you try to build a headend, it is a little bit complex, but after you are able to do that, it is a bit better and straightforward. In terms of duration, Versa headends in HA mode generally require four weeks. For Versa branches, you can do zero-touch provisioning.

While Head End deployment is at par with other SDWAN providers the branch deployment is is not very expensive because of the white box support. White box hardware  is much cheaper than other products. Apart from White boxes you also flexibility to use Versa Boxes , In My opinion  it is one of the  cost-effective platforms that are currently available

When we were trying to implement SDWAN four years ago, the engineering team had evaluated many products. One of them was Cisco iWAN, which was later changed to CISCO Viptela. We evaluated Versa because of the white box and x86 support, which is a special feature. We went ahead with Versa because Cisco iWAN was not a stable platform at that time. Later on, we have added Cisco, Fortinet, and other SDN platforms. There are loyal customers of each and every solution or platform. 

Versa is good for medium and large enterprises. If you want SD-WAN for small enterprises, Fortinet is good. Fortinet is ahead of Versa in terms of ease of deployment. It has controller-less architecture.

I would advise others to just go through all the documentation for its implementation. Versa has a huge repository for documentation. It is not that tough. Just go step by step, and you will be able to do it. If you miss one or two steps, it can get quite difficult to troubleshoot and implement it. That's why I advise following Versa documentation step by step.

I would rate Versa FlexVNF a nine out of ten.

We are using this product and also implementing it for our clients. We manage everything for the customer. We use it here on our platform and also manage the solution for our customers for whom we install it.

Let's say a customer is on premises and he wants to move to the internet but wants to keep the interconnection between their sites. He doesn't want to remain embedded. We would propose Versa in this case.

Also, if a client asks us for more reporting, more analytics and more monitoring and our embedded solution can't do this as a single solution because it would be very heavy and expensive, we would propose Versa. The client finds the analytics and monitoring in Versa very easy and very clear.

In terms of the most valuable features of Versa, I should know because I have also used Cisco, Fortinet and VeloCloud at a previous company where I worked. I explain that between Versa and VeloCloud I find that Versa has more features over VeloCloud. I do think that you have less regarding the firewall features compared to other solutions, though.

Their dashboard is also a good point for us and the customer. The solution is very clean and easy, but it depends what the customer has and how we can integrate it with their current network.

Another thing is regarding the analytics. We have about 15 sites in Europe, the US and Asia. I do some administration for the analytic portal, and this side is very interesting for the customer because today Versa has an embedded solution and we don't have the visibility for all the sites they're using.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say that since we're using more and more 4G today, the product should have two slots for 4G and also have the equipment for giga ready. It should not have different equipment to have a giga bandwidth. For example, it should have 110 and 200, 810 and 800. It would be good if they had only one product that goes directly to the bandwidth for one gigabyte and not necessarily to have different products to do it. Of course if I compare it to only one gigabyte, the price also needs to be reduced.

Another thing that should be improved in Versa are their firewall features. You have their firewall license secure solution but if they could include more features regarding their firewall protection and data protection it would be good. This is because when we go to a customer who also wants a firewall they compare it to other products on the market that are doing more with the firewall. As you know, Fortinet is very strong in this point. If they could put more features on this side, they can be, maybe not equal, but improved.

Our company has been using Versa FlexVNF for around five years with our customers. Our network is on the ISP here in France and our AVN solution is only based on this product. 

It is stable. We haven't had any issues, and neither have the customers that already have it running for two or three years. They have stability on their end. The only stability issues are on the circuit and not on Versa's end. Sometimes the line is cut, so the customer will have an issue. But we don't have any issues with Versa.

In terms of scalability, it doesn't matter if the company is large, medium, or small. We can use it for small and big companies - there is no limitation there. It is not always the company size that matters. When we go to a market segment and a big company, they may not know Versa at all. They may know VeloCloud better.

I can say that I am satisfied with customer support but I'm not quite sure because it is my colleagues who manage this part of support. We have our technical support that manages Versa, the circuit, and all the vendors who are also on our platform.

In terms of the initial setup, I can't answer that because I am just from the sales side, I don't do the installations, my colleagues do it. What I see from the customers that have installed Versa is that the initial step on the starting configuration is very easy. A half hour or hour. My colleagues who use it here in the company manage it and they have a full version for the configuration.

The issue that is difficult for us is when a customer needs firewall features included and he already has a firewall in place that he asks us to replace and to install the features from Versa. It is very complicated for us because it means more time to install since we need to export all the other features that already have rules in the firewall and to put them in Versa. That takes time.

Regarding the price, we can make do with its price today, but I am seeing from our competitors that this market is becoming very aggressive. We lost some projects because we didn't have any strategy to deal with the price. We think that when we discuss the quality of the product the price won't be an issue, so we do not propose it as "low-cost" for this reason.

Currently I propose Versa. That's the platform for my strategy. However, the market is not ready to propose a solution to a customer that's managed by an ISP. So, in the beginning they investigate VeloCloud, Cisco and Fortinet. But in the end they select Versa because it is small and easy for customers, and it has many features that are very interesting to the customers.

Today, when we look back, it was the right decision to choose Versa and our customers are very happy that we only propose this solution.

We always propose only Versa solutions in our quotes for our customers when we have a new project. I only recommend Versa. VeloCloud was the first one to market and for customers that is very important. Customers ask me for a comparison between VeloCloud and Versa since VeloCloud was the first one on the market and he wants to be sure that if he goes with Versa it will not be a mistake.

For me it's not enough just to be first on the market. I know Versa, but I know it's not enough. VeloCloud solutions are more public for companies and buyers than Versa is.

These are the only two products that we validate that are in the regular network - Advantec and them.

On a scale of 1-10, where one is the worst and 10 is the best, I would rate Versa Flex an 8.

It is not a ten because it has a lot of features on the equipment and it is really heavy on the portal. It's not really friendly. Maybe they could do something different for users or administrators to have a friendlier portal.

We primarily use the solution for multi-link aggregated circuits that are co-managed with our provider.

The most valuable aspects of the solution are the next-generation firewall features and geo-blocking capabilities. 

The high availability failover has been also been very important to our organization. Failover is when you have dual boxes and if one of them goes down, the other one picks up the traffic.

The entire solution is very straightforward.

The configuration is very much a command line. Some people don't like working with command lines. I don't know if this particular model can support it, however, if it had more of a GUI, I'd like to see that. It would be nice to see that they had a webpage to configure the solution on versus doing it as a prompt.

It would help if the solution offered artificial intelligence that can actually make real-time decisions on traffic flow.

The smaller units lack a lot of functionality.

I've been using the solution for two and a half to three years now.

We definitely went over a few variations of the firmware. The initial firmware configurations had some issues, however, I think they've got it down now. I would say it's very reliable at this point.

The solution is extremely scalable. We find that having a control center and being able to monitor in one location is very scalable. If organizations need to expand the offering, they can do so rather easily.

Everyone in the organization really uses the solution due to the fact that it's a network edge. Anyone who wants to get out of the network has to use the solution. If you're looking at it from that point of view, if you're looking at it from how many people within the organization actually deal with the daily grind of monitoring and keeping up, we have a small team that takes care of it. The team contains anywhere from five to ten people at any given time.

Technical support has been responsive. This has been a co-managed implementation so when there are any high-end technical caveats, the provider has to deal with the back and forth with Versa. It hasn't been a first-person type interface with them. That said, when I've seen questions being asked, I've seen their responses, and they've been quick to help and reply.

I helped with the initial setup.

It was not straightforward. It was definitely complex. Especially since it was a new product for us. We had a big learning curve from the get-go. 

Other than that, though, once you understood the setup, although I wouldn't say it was straightforward, it wasn't that difficult.

Implementation was over a six month period. We had to swap out upwards of over 35 different sites. We had to schedule downtime and switch out our infrastructure to support it and then bring it back up. Each side had to be done one at a time, without losing business continuity. It was a bit tedious. 

There was a lot of strategy and preparation that went into the project before we even began the setup. You can only take a site down for a certain amount of time without interrupting people's flow. However, our goal was to keep business as usual at up to 90% so that our clients didn't really notice the changeover.

The deployment was co-managed with our providers. The provider brought in support and they had the expertise on the product itself. With their assistance, we strategized and came up with configurations. Then we worked out a schedule and came up with an implementation plan. We started the implementation and checked off each site one at a time as we went through.

Our original network diagram had single circuit MPLS network. And if that circuit went down, the site was down. So this network uses IQ circuit and a broadband circuit for the most part to aggregate and give you greater speeds.

We went from a single circuit MPLS to dual circuits. Therefore, between the cost of one circuit and then two circuits, the one circuit was an expensive circuit. The two are less expensive, but they kind of matched. So the pricing with the service, the new service add on that we did with the provider versus what we had, where it was a self-managed, kind-of washed out. I can't say that we really saved money, however, I don't know the full balance sheet all the way from top to bottom.

I'm not sure what the pricing is on the solution. We're looking at a variety of options, and we're looking to choose a technology and then push forward with a proof of concept as well as a pricing model. We're not there yet.

We are looking at other options. The implementation that we're looking to go forward with is going to be more app-centric based networking. We're looking to see if we can try and bring in something that is not too technical.

There are a few different SD-WAN providers that monitor what's called S-flow data and will take your traffic and balance it depending on what's happening in real-time versus just a straight "here's your internet circuits and use whatever you can" type of setup. As an analogy, if you are in a car, going from A to B, you can use an app like Waze that can warn you about traffic and can reroute you so that you get from A to B in the shortest time. That's what we're looking for. CloudGenix or Palo Alto Networks have SD-WAN solutions that not only aggregate your circuits but can actually push certain traffic certain ways on those circuits, depending on if you're being bottlenecked or if there's an over-bandwidth usage issue. Basically, what we're looking for is something that manages the flow of traffic better.

We're just a customer. We aren't a consultant or reseller.We have a couple of different models. We have the smaller models and the medium-sized models, however, I'm unsure of the exact model numbers.

New users should be aware of sizing. Making sure that the size is correct is important. There are small, medium, and large units, however, the smaller units only support certain functionality. In saying that, they seem to have some issues with some of the functionality on the small units not working. It's best to get a medium-sized unit to get some of the next-generation firewall stuff.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I primarily use FlexVNF for SD-WAN, connecting all our branches, and the main steering.

The most valuable features are the main steering and the firewall. The security features and SD-WAN features are also quite good.

The stability of FlexVNF's controller and devices could be improved.

The stability could be improved.

FlexVNF's scalability is quite good - they implement using a template configuration, which allows for good scalability.

Versa's technical support is good.

Positive

I've also used Forcepoint, and I prefer FlexVNF.

The setup was quite easy and took around a day.

I would give FlexVNF a rating of six out of ten.