WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

The tool's most valuable feature is the dashboard. 

The solution needs to improve its accessibility. 

I have been working with the solution for four months. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

My company has three users for WatchGuard Firebox. 

I rate WatchGuard Firebox a five out of ten. 

My company uses WatchGuard Firebox for the data centers that work in our office. My company has websites and web applications, because of which we use WatchGuard Firebox for system security.

In WatchGuard Firebox, the antivirus and malware detection systems are areas with shortcomings that require improvement since they are the most important elements of a cybersecurity tool.

In the future releases of WatchGuard Firebox, I want to see more frequent updates.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for two years. I am an end-user of WatchGuard Firebox.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a one out of ten.

It is not a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a three out of ten. The scalability structure of the product does not work properly. There are some downtimes in the solution for which we don't get any notifications. In our company, we don't worry whenever there is an upgrade for the solution.

In my company, we are full-time users of WatchGuard Firebox, and we have applications that are not just used inside our office but publicly on the internet. My company faces many cyberattacks from Russia and China, which is really bad.

My company does not plan to increase the use of the solution.

When trying to contact the product's technical support team, it turns out to be a slow process.

I rate the technical support a three out of ten.

Negative

I rate the initial setup phase of the tool a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution's deployment process takes just a few hours to be completed.

For the deployment process, you first connect to a serial cable. WatchGuard has management software that you need to install on a computer to manage the firewall software. You need to connect the firewall serial cables to your computers. In my company, we manage just one software for upgrades and deployments.

One person is enough to take care of the product's deployment process.

WatchGuard Firebox is a cheap solution.

The systems from WatchGuard are not properly working since I have seen that my company faces exploits in security when using WatchGuard Firebox.

If you just plan to use WatchGuard Firebox in your office and not publicly, then it is okay to purchase it. With WatchGuard Firebox, you can manage your users and permissions while also taking care of the basic setup phase in your office. For systems open on the internet, you can use solutions bigger than WatchGuard Firebox that can provide you with more professional services.

Since the tool's performance is not good, I rate the overall tool a two out of ten.

We use this for our network, mainly for the configuration of rules, such as VPN connections, remote access connections, and application web filtering. I'm a security engineer and we are customers of WatchGuard.

This is a very flexible product without licensing limitations. They offer good classes through Gartner. 

Although this solution is better than others on the market, I'd like to see improvement in the visibility of network traffic. It feels that the web interface is missing some parts, particularly access and configuration. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

We've never had to use the technical support. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Our primary use case for the solution is to protect published resources.

The alarm system is valuable because it alerts us if an external intruder tries to attack published resources.

The user interface can be improved because it is sometimes difficult to manage functionality. For example, the site interface is challenging to customize, and it isn't easy to retrieve information.

We have been using this solution for approximately 15 years.

I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable. I rate it as a seven out of ten, and it is better suited for small and medium enterprises.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. I rate them a nine out of ten because they are very responsive and prompt.

Positive

For good implementation, one week is sufficient to reach an acceptable configuration.

The solution is not expensive. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but the user interface and configuration can be improved.

We use WatchGuard for security services mostly.

WatchGuard has made a few improvements to its user interface which have improved the user experience. 

They also made a few improvements to their cloud platform which are good.

WatchGuard is very user-friendly. It provides us with all of the security services we need. 

When it comes to live monitoring, the user interface could be improved to make things easier.

I have been using WatchGuard for more than 10 years. 

WatchGuard is very stable. I would compare it to other top solutions. We have never experienced any bugs or glitches.

I cannot speak about large deployments, but documentation-wise, WatchGuard is pretty scalable. It is easily scalable, you just have to choose the proper hardware — that's it. 

The technical support is very fast and reliable. They are very professional. We have never had any issues with the technical support team.

I used to use FortiGate. The main difference between FortiGate and WatchGuard is their interfaces. FortiGate uses a web-based interface for configuration, whereas WatchGuard has a special application for management. WatchGuard also has a web-based interface but centralized management is done specially. Otherwise, they're pretty much the same product when it comes to functionality, user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, etc.

The initial setup was very easy, we experience no issues. It comes with very good documentation.

The price of WatchGuard is very good.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give WatchGuard a rating of nine.

I would recommend WatchGuard or something from FortiGate. These two solutions are pretty similar and are very good in terms of quality and functionality. I have personally used both of them and they're great.

We're using WatchGuard Firebox for multi-factor authentication (MFA), layer three switching, and to segregate our industrial network from our corporate network.

The most valuable feature of WatchGuard Firebox is its ease of use.

WatchGuard Firebox could improve the speed of updates, such as new features or improvements. However, they are frequently improving the solution in many areas, such as geo-locations, definitions, and web blocking.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for approximately six years.

The stability of WatchGuard Firebox is very stable.

WatchGuard Firebox is very scalable. We're using it in a redundant system with two stacked together. It has good redundancy and is good for failover.

Our whole company of approximately 100 users is using the solution.

The support from WatchGuard Firebox is very good.

Positive

We have one system administrator doing the support and maintenance of the WatchGuard Firebox.

We license the WatchGuard Firebox annually. There are different types of subscriptions available. We are paying approximately $15,000 annually. The cost can increase if you purchase different subscriptions.

You can purchase the solution without support, but I would strongly recommend the support. The support is great.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox an eight out of ten.

It's mainly an internet gateway that is used for internet gateway protection and remote access.

There is room for improvement in the threat protection, data packet inspection, and performance of the solution. Generally, it's just a lower-end product. It does the job but doesn't do it very well.

Compared to Palo Alto, for example, some of the main differences are zero-day protection, performance, deep packet inspection, and App-ID. I'm not really a fan of WatchGuard. We only use it with one client and we're trying to get them to get rid of it. I prefer to use Palo Alto instead. Industry analysts have voted Palo Alto the number one firewall for the last eight consecutive years, so if you want good protection, it's a no-brainer.

I have been working with this solution for 18 months.

The solution is reasonably stable. 

I do not think the product is scalable.

The set up was quite straightforward and we handled it in-house. It took a few hours to deploy the product. One a scale of one to five, one being very hard and five being very easy, I would rate the set up as a five.

It is an entry-level product, so the price is cheap.

The program requires maintenance, including updates, patching, and subscriptions. 

My advice to someone considering this project would be to look into Palo Alto instead. 

I would rate this solution as a one out of ten.

The most valuable features of the WatchGuard Firebox are all the security and updated features. You are able to configure the solution from the cloud platform and the application and web interface are very nice.

Since I have been using this solution I have not been hacked or had any problems.

They are working on cloud-based options. However, they do not have the options fully functional in their solution at this time.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for approximately five years.

WatchGuard Firebox is stable.

The scalability of the WatchGuard Firebox is good.

The technical support is good from WatchGuard Firebox.

The initial setup was easy, and the time it took was a couple of hours.

The price of the WatchGuard Firebox is reasonable.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox an eight out of ten.