WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

WatchGuard Firebox serves as the main use case for perimeter protection in my company. I use WatchGuard Firebox for perimeter protection as the core of the network, where subnet segmentation is carried out.

We could also add everything related to geolocation services, geolocation of connections, traffic inspection, and network intelligence in terms of how we use WatchGuard Firebox in the core of the network for perimeter protection.

The best features offered by WatchGuard Firebox include the solutions, the ease of use, having a single appliance where I can incorporate practically all security services, and the management seems intuitive and quite easy to me, which is what I would highlight the most.

The ease of using the features of WatchGuard Firebox has made a difference in my day-to-day work as the Firebox configurations are done in an intuitive way, the application of different policies, network management, how very easily I can create a DHCP service for a specific network, and the VPN system is very easy to configure.

WatchGuard Firebox has had a positive impact on my organization because the improvement in security is evident, and economically, it is a product that is at a very good price point, allowing us to easily have remote clients connected via VPN in an extremely easy way with a lightweight client, which has had a very positive impact.

WatchGuard Firebox has simplified aspects of my work, for example, the process of enabling remote work has been advantageous because by deploying an automated Windows agent, it already deploys the VPN client quickly and easily.

I think WatchGuard Firebox could improve by making WatchGuard Cloud functionality more intuitive and by having better speed performance on VPN networks.

My impression of WatchGuard's spam-blocking capabilities is that this might be the weakest point of the product, as it does not have great spam management compared to other competitors in the market, but it has not affected us excessively.

I have not experienced improvements in terms of reduction in system bottlenecks after implementing WatchGuard Firebox.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for seven years.

Based on my experience, I consider WatchGuard Firebox to be a stable solution.

I find that WatchGuard Firebox's scalability adapts perfectly, and I have not noticed any problem that has prevented me from growing due to Firebox itself.

My experience with WatchGuard Firebox technical support has always been very satisfactory.

I previously used a Cisco solution before WatchGuard Firebox, and I decided to switch because of ease of use, technical features, and price.

I have noticed a return on investment since I started using WatchGuard Firebox because the solution is somewhat cheaper than that of competitors, but I have not had any staff reductions thanks to Firebox.

My experience with the pricing, implementation cost, and licenses of WatchGuard Firebox has been quite happy because it is cheaper compared to other competitors.

Before choosing WatchGuard Firebox, I evaluated other options, including Fortinet.

My advice to other professionals considering using WatchGuard Firebox is to use local management. I have provided this review with an overall rating of 10.

My main use case for WatchGuard Firebox is modifying firewall rules and managing the entire university environment. A specific example of how I use WatchGuard Firebox to modify rules or manage the university environment is allowing access from the outside to the internal servers.

I consider the best features that WatchGuard Firebox offers to be the security, flexibility, and strength it has as a firewall. Regarding the security, flexibility, and strength I mention, these features have benefited me in my daily work by having strong IDS protection, protection in terms of the EPDR antivirus platform with WatchGuard's cloud platform, and all the features the tool itself has.

WatchGuard Firebox has positively impacted my organization by providing a reliable and secure environment facing outward, and the ability to manage our internal rules. A concrete example of how that reliable and secure environment has improved the daily work or operations of the university is being able to identify attacks, with WatchGuard Firebox, the firewall, mitigating them has provided more security for the whole university.

The aspects I think could be improved in WatchGuard Firebox include the issue of licenses, as there is no equipment with large resources and the only way to do it is by having a virtual environment and then applying the license there.

I would like to elaborate more on the challenges I have encountered with the licensing system by saying that the license costs could be improved, as they are too high.

I have been working in my current field for two years.

I consider WatchGuard Firebox to be quite stable.

I rate the scalability of WatchGuard Firebox as quite scalable for the infrastructure we currently have.

My experience with WatchGuard Firebox's customer support is that they should have better communication channels.

Before implementing WatchGuard Firebox, I was using MikroTik.

The process of implementing the VPN for external users has been simple; there were no issues.

I have seen a return on investment with WatchGuard Firebox in terms of security.

My experience with the pricing, implementation costs, and licenses of WatchGuard Firebox was not good; there had to be many negotiations and we are still not satisfied with the licensing.

Before choosing WatchGuard Firebox, I evaluated other options, specifically Palo Alto.

My impression of WatchGuard Firebox's spam-blocking capabilities is that they are quite useful, especially the management of the EPDR or EPP of the antivirus platform, which is very effective.

I have noticed a significant reduction in bottlenecks in the systems after implementing WatchGuard Firebox, resulting in quite good performance improvements.

The high-speed ports in WatchGuard Firebox have helped maintain productivity during usage peaks in my organization by remaining stable, with no major issues regarding bandwidth, as it has been quite balanced.

The features of WatchGuard Firebox I consider most valuable for maintaining network security are the IDS and IPS protection for attacks, which are critical for attack mitigation.

My advice to other professionals who are considering using WatchGuard Firebox is that it is an interesting tool in terms of competitiveness with other technologies and it is very secure. I give this product an overall rating of eight out of ten.

On-premises

My main use case for WatchGuard Firebox is MSSP. It depends on the requirements of the customers. For example, we have a food company with two branches. We have an M390 as a main firewall and an M390 high availability as the backup firewall, with two T80s in the branches. We have a VPN for the connections.

WatchGuard Firebox cloud console for remote management is valuable feedback from my technical team. It is very useful, and it is free, whereas other products have a fee.

Ease of use and VPN are how WatchGuard Firebox helps enable remote work for my team and my clients. WatchGuard Firebox is a well-branded company, but it is very behind Fortinet and Check Point, which is how it has impacted my organization positively.

WatchGuard Firebox is adequate, but the commercial policy is poor. I have seen better products regarding the spam blocking capabilities of WatchGuard Firebox, and this has affected my email management negatively.

Customer support is awful, as there is no customer support in Greece, which is why I changed vendors. I recommend changing the leadership in Greece and the distributors.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for about six or seven years.

WatchGuard Firebox is stable.

Customer support is awful, as there is no customer support in Greece, and that is why I changed.

I switched to Fortinet because WatchGuard Firebox is too expensive.

I find the pricing, setup cost, and licensing to be very expensive.

I evaluated Check Point before choosing WatchGuard Firebox.

I advise others looking into using WatchGuard Firebox to not use it.

On-premises

I actually use the host ransomware prevention feature of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response, and we haven't had issues with that. This is currently maintained by our partner in the WatchGuard management. We are a town hall, but there is an enterprise provider that is currently managing all the WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response installation.

I am not familiar with the automated remediation tools in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response and how they help in reducing manual intervention because this is managed by our provider.

I have not yet utilized the cloud sandboxing feature in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response.

The centralized visibility and control of endpoints in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response helps coordinate cybersecurity, but this is managed by another tool that is installed in our PCs. It is installed and configured, but we don't use it because the main feature is with the EDR. It is configured but not used as a model per se.

I would like to improve WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response, but I don't manage it directly. The main problem that WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response has is that they use several tools to do the same tasks, and they are sometimes very complicated to use and very slow.

For example, we had Palo Alto deployed 10 years ago, and there were many things that were better managed by Palo Alto than the tools we currently have in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. The main concern is about managing tools and having a unified management model for managing the firewalls and response. They have many web interfaces that do many things, but they don't have one tool that does all the things that a firewall should do.

I have been working with WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response for about three years.

The deployment for WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response took about three months because we deployed many components around the system. Previously, we had Palo Alto, and we changed all the structures to WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. We changed VPN, detection mode for several things such as HTTP navigation, and many other products. The final substitution took about one month. The most delayed deployment was the VPN because we have around 1,000 users.

The technical support of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is generally helpful. We have had two issues related to the VPN, and we experienced 24/7 activity from their team. Their support was very powerful as they responded very quickly and stayed online with us for two days.

However, when we find something strange in the firewall, such as access issues or configuration changes, the WatchGuard team has to recompile some new features or make a new deployment to our installation to solve the problem. This was not the case with Palo Alto. They are very powerful in this sector, but they have some issues in the way they manage the firewall system.

Positive

Two years after the deployment, we have found that WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is more difficult to manage than Palo Alto and Fortinet. Our biggest concern is not about price but about management.

The installation and implementation process of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response was handled as a part-time job by one person.

I am satisfied with the licensing cost and pricing of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response because we came from Palo Alto, which is a very expensive firewall. When we tried to renew the Palo Alto license, the cost was beyond any reasonable range. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response seemed very powerful and appeared to be a good solution, as recommended by our partner. At that time, we had several options, including Fortinet.

I have not seen any positive impact or benefits for my company from using WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 7.

On-premises

Other

I work with WatchGuard Firebox as a partner. I use WatchGuard Firebox only for firewall.

The most valuable features of WatchGuard Firebox are its simplicity and easy-to-learn approach. It simplifies policy management and firewall management.

WatchGuard Firebox's security module needs improvement; the security service needs to work better and provide security feedback that I could use.

Also, it needs to work better on some features that are at a baseline compared to other solutions or vendors.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for six years.

I rate the stability of WatchGuard Firebox a nine.

I rate the scalability of WatchGuard Firebox a seven because the performance needed from WatchGuard Firebox changes a lot based on the security services or deep inspection enabled.

I rate the technical support of WatchGuard Firebox a nine out of ten.

WatchGuard Firebox's pricing is good and just right.

I have not experienced a reduction in system bottlenecks after deploying WatchGuard Firebox.

WatchGuard Firebox requires sometimes just the upgrade for maintenance. The maintenance of WatchGuard Firebox has become easier in the last year.

My impression of WatchGuard Firebox's spam blocking capabilities is that it is not used. This feature cannot be used because today, no one has an on-premises email server.

I recommend WatchGuard Firebox to other users in small companies because it is simple, stable, and the costs are good and right. However, I think that when a company becomes larger or needs security features like deep inspection, they need to switch to something with more capabilities.

On-premises

WatchGuard Firebox is a firewall and security product.

WatchGuard Firebox provides benefits in terms of security, time saving, resource saving, and cost savings. The price-to-quality ratio is reasonable.

There is room for improvement in WatchGuard Firebox regarding customization and AI functionality. Pricing is another area that could be addressed in future releases.

I have been working with WatchGuard firewalls for approximately 20 years.

My overall experience with WatchGuard's technical support is good. They are responsive, and I would rate their support as a 9 out of 10.

Positive

The deployment process for WatchGuard Firebox is straightforward. Implementation requires approximately half a day, and only one person from my side is needed to complete the process.

WatchGuard Firebox is beneficial in terms of finance and provides return on investment through cost reductions.

I work with other vendors aside from WatchGuard depending on customer needs. Sophos is an alternative vendor I use on rare occasions compared to WatchGuard.

I work with WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention in addition to WatchGuard Firebox. My overall experience with software in the IT sphere is quite extensive. I am in a partnership with WatchGuard. 

On-premises

We use it for data loss prevention, firewall, and malware protection.

WatchGuard Firebox has excellent documentation. The setup and documentation are the best features. WatchGuard Firebox helps simplify aspects of the job for my clients. The features of WatchGuard Firebox are most valuable for maintaining network security.

Several areas of WatchGuard Firebox have room for improvement, including AI, UI, pricing, support, and implementation integration.

I have six months of experience with WatchGuard Firebox.

I rate the stability for WatchGuard Firebox highly.

WatchGuard Firebox handles scalability well.

WatchGuard Firebox does help reduce bottlenecks. The reduction in system bottlenecks is significant. When comparing WatchGuard Firebox with other vendors such as Fortinet, SonicWall, Palo Alto, and Sophos, WatchGuard Firebox performs competitively.

The deployment of WatchGuard Firebox is straightforward with no significant challenges.

The main use cases for the WatchGuard Firebox are to protect our customers' network, VPN connection or IPsec, or SSL VPN, as by default, it's a protection of the network and the users, and servers.

WatchGuard Firebox technical support is very easy for us to contact, and we also have presales engineers such as Jeremy Schramm, who is French and provides excellent technical help; he visits our office one day a month to assist us in trying some solutions.I utilize AI within the WatchGuard Firebox, as we use the interconnection with threat syncs, and AI is implemented; we try to sell our customers XDR or IDR, so there is AI in the product.I have a good impression of the efficiency for threat detection provided by the WatchGuard Firebox, as we have cybersecurity teams and sell security about the product, so we think it is a good product to protect our clients.

I would like to see the WatchGuard Firebox improved because I work with an experimental presales engineer directly, and we have some presentations regarding the SASE project under the XDR solution, so we know the good projects now.The WatchGuard Firebox has certain features, but the challenge is that we have some clients who don't have a network or are only mobile users, which leads us to think the future is in SASE products, not in the WatchGuard Firebox.The mobile coverage should be included with the WatchGuard Firebox, but in some cases, there is no WatchGuard Firebox because the client has no network or all users are in different locations.

I have been working with the WatchGuard Firebox for probably 10 or 11 years, as we are IT resellers and sell all customers these firewalls, so it's the product by default, and all customers we have have by default, Stormshield WatchGuard Firebox.

I find the WatchGuard Firebox stable with no problems; it's performing well.

I find the WatchGuard Firebox scalable, as it's easy to change configurations from this product to another one, although it's always complicated to buy another product and there are no upgrade solutions at a lower price.

WatchGuard Firebox technical support is very easy for us to contact, and we also have presales engineers such as Jeremy Schramm, who is French and provides excellent technical help; he visits our office one day a month to assist us in trying some solutions.On a scale of one to 10, I would rate the technical support of the WatchGuard Firebox a 10.I would recommend the WatchGuard Firebox to other businesses, as it is very easy to communicate with them for support and the presales engineers, who are very easy to work with.

Positive

The only problem we have with the WatchGuard Firebox is about the price or the options that are very expensive for customers, as other firewalls such as FortiGate offer free MFA authentication, so the main trouble is the price of the product.

I find that we have no trouble with the WatchGuard Firebox, as it is very simple to install because we have certified engineer installation, so it's very easy for us.

I have faced challenges with the WatchGuard Firebox regarding price since we work with customers who use the Stormshield product, which is less expensive and French-made, while some products from the USA have left a bad impression, and some customers ask us to find another French or European product.

The main differences between WatchGuard Firebox and other solutions such as FortiGate or Sophos are that I find the product heartbeat in the Sophos product very good; however, in WatchGuard Firebox, there is a similar set of products as firewalls, showing no major difference.

My advice for users looking to start working with the WatchGuard Firebox is that the easiest solution is to realize a POC to test the product, so we can watch and review reports with customers. On a scale of one to 10, I would overall rate the WatchGuard Firebox as a solution a nine.

I'm using it in the banking sector only. Basically, I'm using it for security and other purposes, including data loss prevention. Security is the main purpose in banks.

Nowadays, we are using small models for SD WAN also, depending on security purposes. Basically, we have received a good return on investment.

The basic problem is that for every firewall in India, there is a need for a one-year or two-year subscription. That is the main issue for all users. Particularly in India, the cost for renewal after three years is 75% of the hardware cost, which is a significant problem.

I've been using VoiceBot for the last two years.

It's scalable for us. If we're going for more concurrent users, we need to change the entire box. In that case, they provide a discount for replacing the old box. I think it involves seven or eight users.

The technical support is good. Their distributor is in Mumbai, and they arrange everything about support. In case we need the same development PeerSpot or engineers on-site.

Neutral

It depends on the company, however, it usually takes about two hours, not more than that. I have a team of specialists for this, consisting of three people.

Only three or four people are involved. It relies on online support by remote access, not on-site visits.

I don't know the current cost. It's all imported products. It's not assembled in India. It's expensive us here.

Currently, I'm using WatchGuard. I'm also using pfSense in some cases.

The major problem is pricing and licensing loss. In India, the cost for renewal after three years is 75% of the hardware cost, which is a significant problem. Your review may be available to third parties and on third-party websites.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

On-premises

The solution is used when you want to handle policies with the file. There are different ways you can use it, like in the firewall rules and in proxy rules, and to secure emails. The tool was used very much when there were emails with other set files, and then it would all be checked in the firewall.

It is a basic tool tool, and it does very well for what it is supposed to do. It does simple checks against signatures. I think it is very much what it needs to be, and it is a basic tool that you just use.

There were a little bit of problems with the tool's updates, making it an area where improvements are needed. Sometimes, the firewalls did not get updated in the databases.

I have been using WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus for over ten years.

The tool is so simple to use. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The scalability depends on how many firewalls you have, and you can put every firewall in it which takes part in the gateway on device checking. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

In my company, there are around 50 people who use the tool. My company also has sister concerns and head offices using the tool. I know that sister concerns are using the same WatchGuard devices as the main company.

I don't think I need any technical support from the website, as it is a basic product. You just plug it in where you need it and then use it. I went through some basic training, and after that, I don't think I ever had to ask someone something. You just put it on and make sure that it can connect to the outlet server.

I know about a lot of different tools, but I have been working with WatchGuard for almost all of my career, as it offers services with which you just connect to the ISPs and firewalls, after which you can put the settings on, but for most of my career, I have been working with WatchGuard.

During the product's installation phase, you just put the tool in the right place, and it works.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of minutes. The installation process is so basic that I don't even remember what you need to do. You just put the tick marks in the tool and ask the tool to use them. In the rules, where you see the files go through is where you can think over what to do with the files. With the tool, you just need to put it on, and then the default rules make sure that there is some indication that something is wrong.

My company manages everything associated with the tool by myself. I was also involved in the tool's maintenance. As a small team, we all can do it.

Every pair has a license, especially for commercial products. For what we use, the tool's price has been reasonable, but it is not the cheapest. The tool has been quite reasonable.

The tool's cost includes various things, like licenses and support. If you buy basic licenses for the device, everything is included, making it easy to use. If one is very expensive and ten is absolutely cheap, then I rate the tool's price as a six.

It is the basic starting tool. We used different tools in the company. In our gateway, we used WatchGuard because we used WatchGuard's firewalls. It was very easy to set it up. It was used so that if there was anything you needed, you could just use the tool, and then we had different tools for workstations.

The tool is a basic product. You usually start with it, and you make sure that everything goes through your devices. If there is a possibility to check the file that is going through your firewall, you do it. If you catch something, then it is very good, and it is much easier to do when no user has access to it. You just need to use the tool at the start, as it makes the end part easier to manage. It doesn't distract your attention from other tasks. It just works, and you don't need to distract yourself.

If users are downloading something from somewhere, the tool makes sure that the easy issues don't get through. Everything else can work a little less because it takes the easy issues out, so it is the backbone for doing the checks. When it can do its checks and block the infected files, it does it very well and easily. When there are different cases where it cannot act as an antivirus gateway that cannot touch files, then you may need different tools, especially if you don't use WatchGuard products for your emails, so you will need to have something on the email side of things. If you are using web emails and trying to transfer them through your firewalls, then it checks the files and says what is not good.

There are bad elements trying to find different ways to get the files through, and they already know their bad deeds very well. They are finding ways to pass your checks and basic things, and so they are always training their people to find better tools to help them in their job to find what needs to be accessed, making it the biggest challenge for the tool to overcome. The tool is good at the start, but it is not so good until the end. You need to be vigilant about changes. I think what is needed is that one gets a view of his or her network so that you know what is happening in your network. Antivirus and firewall products can be a part of our network, and they provide logs so you can see the logs and what is happening in your network. Providing the big picture of your network is what I think we need to do a little bit of a job now.

I have not used the tool's AI features. Someday, I may use it.

It is a very good product for how it works and does its job, but it is not an all-inclusive solution. It does its job very well, and it is quite easy to put to use. You need to get different views of what is happening in your network and what is coming into your network. Suppose the network traffic is going to interrupt it. If you don't go to the SSE proxy settings or you aren't allowed to do it also, then it cannot take all the traffic. If there are possibilities for the traffic to go through, or it cannot check-in, then we need to understand that all the products cannot do it all.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

On-premises