PeerSpot user
Technical & Pre-Sales Manager at GateLock
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Easy and quick to set up with a helpful wizard, offers good protection, quick technical support
Pros and Cons
  • "This product offers great protection using the default settings."
  • "This is a great product and offers great protection but they don't hear the customers' needs. They don't make improvements as per the customers' requests."

What is our primary use case?

We are a solution provider and WatchGuard is one of the product lines that we implement for our customers. I am the person in the company that is responsible for WatchGuard products.

We do not use this product in my organization. I'm enabling partners and providing training for them on how to use this technology and how to sell it.

I assist customers with implementing PoC installations in different environments.

My client that recently implemented WatchGuard Firebox is running an ERP that is used by clients that are in different countries from around the world. They are using Firebox to protect the ERP from outside threats. Essentially, they need to protect the perimeter because users come to the server from different environments.

This solution protects the cloud-based server from incoming and outgoing traffic. In this regard, it acts as a web application filter for the server.

What is most valuable?

This product offers great protection using the default settings.

What needs improvement?

The vendor needs to address customer concerns and develop more according to requests, instead of prioritizing based on the existing roadmap. This is a great product and offers great protection but they don't hear the customers' needs. They don't make improvements as per the customers' requests. This is especially true in cases where the feature is common among competitors.

In the future, I would like to see better integration with Active Directory. It should depend on the user's login. This is a feature in big demand and most competitors do not deal with it the right way. Making this change would make sense with customers.

For how long have I used the solution?

I began using WatchGuard Firebox approximately two years ago.

Buyer's Guide
WatchGuard Firebox
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about WatchGuard Firebox. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This is a very stable product.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scaling this solution requires a migration plan. For an on-premises deployment, there can be challenges related to extending the hardware appliances. A single box is not scalable itself. Rather, you need to migrate to a bigger appliance. But, there is an amazing feature for this called offline configuration.

The offline configuration capability lets you migrate settings from one box to another in minutes. After five minutes, everything will be migrated to the other Firebox and it will scale smoothly without any interruptions.

How are customer service and support?

Technical support for this product is perfect. If you open a ticket with them, even with the slowest SLA, they reply to you within four hours. You can also request that they open a remote session with you.

When it comes to feature requests, however, the vendor takes too long to reply.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Quite some time ago, I had experience with Sophos products as a distributor in Egypt.

I also have experience with products by Fortinet. I have been evaluating Fortinet because they are one of our competitors.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very easy and straightforward. They have a great wizard and it has a great default protection setting. Anyone that is setting it up for the first time, or has not even used a network security product, doesn't need an expert to configure it. The default protection for threats is great.

This is always deployed in a virtual environment, either on-premises or on the cloud. The deployment can be completed in six to ten minutes.

What about the implementation team?

I deploy this product for my customers.

The staff required for deployment and maintenance depends on the project capacity. For a small or medium-sized project, one person is enough. For the smoothest deployment, this should be an engineer or an experienced technician that is aware of network security.

What other advice do I have?

My advice for anybody who is implementing WatchGuard Firebox is to follow the guidelines and best practices that are available on the WatchGuard help center.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
IT Manager at Yamazen Inc
Real User
GUI makes setup easy and provides us with graphical, real-time bandwidth usage
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature is the GUI, especially the real-time bandwidth usage report. Also, its integration with WiFi access points is nice."
  • "We bought Firebox four or five years ago, and with the first version I had to reboot it every two or three months for no apparent reason. We upgraded last year to the M370 and it's been running, but it is rebooting from time to time. I don't know why."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case is for firewalls.

How has it helped my organization?

We were using Websense before, for website filtering, and we had to configure the device to block and monitor. Then we would go to Cisco to configure the firewall ports and then we used antivirus software to protect that the gateway from viruses. So we were using three or four different security products. WatchGuard integrated into everything in one place, so it's much easier to configure.

It has simplified my job. Before WatchGuard, we needed one person inside and two people outside to set up our network. Now I can do it by myself.

The solution has saved us 30 minutes to an hour every day. In terms of productivity, before WatchGuard we had given up checking the logs because there was so much information. But now, with its graphical interface, it's much easier to get the information that I need: the violations and sever errors are easier to pull out.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the GUI, especially the real-time bandwidth usage report. Also, its integration with WiFi access points is nice.

The product's usability is very good. We were using Cisco products before, and that was terrible. The difference is in integration. With Cisco we had to go into the command line to configure devices. With WatchGuard we can do everything from the GUI, so it's much easier to set up and to make sure everything is working the way we want.

The throughput of the solution is good. It's also very good at reporting. I can see things graphically so I don't have to read through all the log text files.

The solution provides our business with layered security. In terms of the attack vectors it secures, we have a firewall set up and it gives me reports. It also has an integrated web filtering solution. I can set up a website filter and it's all filtered in one place. I don't have to go to another solution.

What needs improvement?

I don't know if it's just my version, but the WiFi access point integration has just started. It's getting better but if there were more reporting of the devices that are connected to WiFi access points that would be great. Right now I can see the MAC address and bandwidth usage for each device but that's about it. If I could see which sites the devices are visiting and what kind of traffic is generated from each device, that would be great.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Firebox for four or five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We bought Firebox four or five years ago, and with the first version I had to reboot it every two or three months for no apparent reason. We upgraded last year to the M370 and it's been running, but it is rebooting from time to time. I don't know why.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Since everything is integrated, when there is really high user traffic, especially to the different locations, including email and everything coming in at one time, I see very high CPUs. It may not be as scalable as having three or four different devices running, one for each task.

The bandwidth is good but we only have a 15 meg fibre to this location and I see high CPU usage, so I wonder how far it can go up. It's working well for us but if you are trying to go to 200 or 300 meg of bandwidth you may need to get a bigger WatchGuard.

We don't have any plans to increase usage in the future. It has a hotspot client access which we're somewhat interested in, but we don't have many guests coming into our offices. That's the one area where we might spend some time.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is really good. That's one of the best parts of this product. With Cisco, you have to transfer all over the place, but with WatchGuard there's a ticket system. When you open up a ticket, they are really responsive.

Their response time is within a few hours. If you just log a ticket through the website, you get a response back within one to two hours. But if you call up, they respond really fast. And it's a real tech guy responding back. You go through all your details and you get answers right away.

At times I have made an additional feature request and even I have forgotten that I requested it, but they keep following up. I have to say, "It's okay now, forget it."

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were using Cisco Professional Services whenever we had to tweak our IP forms or QoS and those advanced types of changes. The outside consultants were costing us money. With WatchGuard we can do the setup by ourselves. We tried it and found we could do it.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward. The graphic interface gives you bandwidth control, traffic control, and a graphics screen, unlike the Cisco products where you have to go into the command line. There, you are typing commands but it's really hard to tell if it's working or not. With WatchGuard, it gives you the response right back and you see results right away. So, it's much easier to configure.

Our deployment took about three days. To get it up and running it took about one hour. The rest of the time was to tweak our firewalls, open up this port, open up that site.

Regarding our implementation strategy, we have ten remote locations. We started with one branch as a test bed, set up a template there, and applied it to the corporate site here. When we applied it to the corporate site it took a little while, about three days. But once the corporate template was done, the other sites were quick. We set up the device, and it shipped it out and, in ten to 15 minutes, it was up and running.

What about the implementation team?

We purchased the solution from a local distributor, Jensen IT, and they had a support line. We called up two or three times. Our experience with them was very reasonable.

What was our ROI?

From a pure cost standpoint, we cut our fees in half by moving to WatchGuard. And in terms of time, we are spending one-third or even one-fifth of the time we were spending on Cisco devices. Those are substantial savings.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The price is so small that I don't pay attention to it anymore. I think we pay a few thousand dollars for two to three years, so about $100 per month. That's for all of our users.

There is an additional cost if we want to go with a deeper licensing model, but we just pay for antivirus, IPS, and main product support.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

At the time we made the switch to WatchGuard we were also using two or three different solutions to manage security and our internet connection. We were using Symantec Gateway for antivirus protection, Websense for web filtering, Symantec IPS reporting, and Cisco.

The integration of all of those with our system was cumbersome and there were maintenance fees and license fees being paid to four or five companies. All licensing terms were different and it was really cumbersome to manage. With WatchGuard, everything is really in one place.

However, for one of our new locations we started using Meraki, which has cloud capabilities so I can remotely manage the setup of the firewall for remote offices. For ease-of-setup, Meraki is a little bit easier. If you want an easy solution in terms of setup, Meraki might be a better solution. But there is a lack of depth of setup on the Meraki, while WatchGuard is a real firewall solution. In the new office, we only have a five people, so the WatchGuard features may be a little bit too much that size of office.

Firebox has a very small model for personal use, a home-use product, but we did not test it out. That might be a good fit, but the value for a very small office may be a little bit of overkill.

What other advice do I have?

If you have a small IT staff and want an easy-to-set-up solution, I would one hundred percent recommend WatchGuard. If you have a very serious, big IT department and a big business, you might want to test out the throughput and the stability.

In each of our ten remote offices, we have about ten to 15 people using it. At our corporate office we have 70 to 80 people. We require two people for deployment and one person for maintenance of the solution, including me, the IT manager and, our systems administrator.

I would rate the solution at nine out of the. It's just missing that stability point.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
WatchGuard Firebox
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about WatchGuard Firebox. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Lead IT Systems Engineer/Solutions Architect at Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council
Real User
Functional, with features that work well, has good reporting and dashboard capabilities, and manages traffic more efficiently
Pros and Cons
  • "What I found most valuable in WatchGuard Firebox is that it's a functional platform that works, and each of its features works well. The solution also has good reporting and dashboard capabilities. I also find the overall performance of WatchGuard Firebox great."
  • "What could use some significant improvement in WatchGuard Firebox would be its interface and policy management. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of WatchGuard Firebox is the ability to modify an existing policy instead of having to recreate a policy when changes are necessary. At the moment, there's no possibility to modify the policy. You have to delete the policy and recreate it."

What is our primary use case?

WatchGuard Firebox is used as the core firewall. It's also used for routing purposes. As a software, it's also used as a VPN access for external clients.

How has it helped my organization?

How WatchGuard Firebox improved my organization is that it provided a deeper level of traffic management. It allowed the company to more effectively manage the network traffic, which led to higher efficiencies across the network. Though FortiGate does a much better job of managing traffic, WatchGuard Firebox does it more efficiently.

What is most valuable?

What I found most valuable in WatchGuard Firebox is that it's a functional platform that works, and each of its features works well. The solution also has good reporting and dashboard capabilities. I also find the overall performance of WatchGuard Firebox great.

What needs improvement?

What could use some significant improvement in WatchGuard Firebox would be its interface and policy management.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of WatchGuard Firebox is the ability to modify an existing policy instead of having to recreate a policy when changes are necessary. At the moment, there's no possibility to modify the policy. You have to delete the policy and recreate it.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using WatchGuard Firebox since 2016. I'm still using it.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

WatchGuard Firebox is a very stable product with no issues whatsoever.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

WatchGuard Firebox is a very scalable product. My company decided, after initial implementation, to move to a redundant core network, and it was able to implement a second device seamlessly to act as a passive follow.

How are customer service and support?

All of my interactions with the technical support team of WatchGuard Firebox have been great, so far. The support team is very responsive and very knowledgeable. I haven't had an issue that the team hasn't been able to resolve. The team always responded within the SLAs.

On a scale of one to five, I'm rating the support for WatchGuard Firebox a five.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used Palo Alto before WatchGuard Firebox, and the reason we switched was because of some failures in the Palo Alto firewall.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup for WatchGuard Firebox was very straightforward, though my company has a relatively complex network utilizing SD-WAN, MPLS, and BOVPN technologies. On a scale of one to five, where one is the worst and five is the best, I'm rating my setup experience a four. There's always room for improvement, but it was a fairly good process.

The deployment of the WatchGuard Firebox took eight hours to complete.

WatchGuard Firebox has been implemented as the core firewall for the organization. The reason my organization upgraded to the device and switched from a previous software was due to a hardware failure of the previous firewall.

What about the implementation team?

We deployed WatchGuard Firebox internally, through my team.

What was our ROI?

In terms of ROI from WatchGuard Firebox, from a data perspective, I couldn't share only because my company doesn't have any metrics on ROI. However, I can say that the threat management and prevention features such as IPS and IDS caught several malicious files coming in through the firewall or WatchGuard Firebox, so I suppose that alone makes it worth its weight in gold.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We paid $4000 in AUD for WatchGuard Firebox per year. There were no additional costs.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I didn't evaluate other solutions, apart from Palo Alto, before using WatchGuard Firebox.

What other advice do I have?

I'm using the latest version of WatchGuard Firebox.

My company has one thousand and five hundred users of WatchGuard Firebox in IT, Finance, and Graphic Design.

At this point, there's no plan to scale WatchGuard Firebox, but it's fairly well-configured to scale if required.

I do ninety-nine percent of the work in terms of maintaining the product. One person seems enough for the maintenance of the WatchGuard Firebox.

The only advice I would share to others looking to implement WatchGuard Firebox for business is to consult with a person experienced on the platform, specifically during your first implementation, just because there could be some unique issues that you may face that you won't find outside of the WatchGuard platform. Overall, I would recommend WatchGuard Firebox to others.

In general, I'd give WatchGuard Firebox eight out of ten because there's always room for improvement. No product will ever get a perfect ten. I ruled out nine as the rating and I gave WatchGuard Firebox an eight just because fundamentally, a firewall packet and policy management is at the forefront of what a firewall does, and not being able to modify the policy really bumps the product down a little bit in terms of rating, in my opinion.

I'm a customer of WatchGuard Firebox.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Global Head ICT (CITP & MIE) at The Aga Khan Academies
Real User
Helpful for policy-based usage and monitoring our mail services, very stable, and fast support
Pros and Cons
  • "Policy VPN, site-to-site VPN, traffic monitoring, anti-spam filters, and all other advanced features are valuable."
  • "The way Secure Sign-On authentication is happening needs to be improved. When the Secure Sign-On portal is turned on, anybody who comes into the campus, whether he or she is a staff member or a guest, has to go past the initial portal. One of the shortcomings is the username. It shouldn't allow permutations or combinations with upper or lower cases. For example, when there is a username abc, it shouldn't allow ABC or Abc. It should not allow the same username, but currently, two separate people can go in. Therefore, its authentication or validation should be improved, and the case sensitiveness should be picked up. If I have restricted someone to two devices, they shouldn't be able to use different combinations of the same username and get into the third or fourth device. It shouldn't allow different combinations of alphabets to be used to log in."

What is our primary use case?

We run education organizations. We have students and staff working on campus. We wanted to be protected within the campus as well as outside the campus.

I am using WatchGuard Firebox XTM 850, and I have its latest version.

How has it helped my organization?

In terms of users within the campus, the policy-based usage helps us where we allow something during the daytime, something after school hours, and something during the night. In terms of outside the campus, it helps us in monitoring our mail services. All our deployments are protected from external users.

What is most valuable?

Policy VPN, site-to-site VPN, traffic monitoring, anti-spam filters, and all other advanced features are valuable.

What needs improvement?

The way Secure Sign-On authentication is happening needs to be improved. When the Secure Sign-On portal is turned on, anybody who comes into the campus, whether he or she is a staff member or a guest, has to go past the initial portal. One of the shortcomings is the username. It shouldn't allow permutations or combinations with upper or lower cases. For example, when there is a username abc, it shouldn't allow ABC or Abc. It should not allow the same username, but currently, two separate people can go in. Therefore, its authentication or validation should be improved, and the case sensitiveness should be picked up. If I have restricted someone to two devices, they shouldn't be able to use different combinations of the same username and get into the third or fourth device. It shouldn't allow different combinations of alphabets to be used to log in. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using WatchGuard solutions for the last ten years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is very stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is scalable. We have about 1,200 users at this point in time, but the number of devices exceeds 2,200. There are multiple devices per person in today's world. A staff member is using three or four devices, and students are using at least two, which makes it 2,500 or 3,000 devices.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is very good. You get a response within 15 minutes to an hour at the max.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We had Cisco ASA Firewall. It was a very simple firewall.

How was the initial setup?

Its initial setup is very straightforward. It took 30 minutes.

What about the implementation team?

A consultant from WatchGuard was there. He showed it once, and our people could do it easily. They have deployed it again and again. It is pretty simple. 

You just need one person for its deployment and maintenance. Security personnel is the one who manages it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

They have an annual subscription license. Initially, we had opted for three years. After that, we went for another three years, and after that, we have been doing it yearly. They also have a license for five years.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated SonicWall, Palo Alto, and Cisco, but this was the best.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
IT Network Support Officer at The Premier Centre
Real User
The solution's most valuable feature is dashboard but need improvement in accessibility
Pros and Cons
  • "The tool's most valuable feature is the dashboard."
  • "The solution needs to improve its accessibility."

What is most valuable?

The tool's most valuable feature is the dashboard. 

What needs improvement?

The solution needs to improve its accessibility. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with the solution for four months. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

My company has three users for WatchGuard Firebox. 

What other advice do I have?

I rate WatchGuard Firebox a five out of ten. 

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:
Flag as inappropriate
PeerSpot user
Enterprise Architect at a wellness & fitness company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Provides the layered security I need but reporting and management features could be improved
Pros and Cons
  • "Intrusion Prevention is my primary focus so that's what I find most useful. The why is straightforward: It's to prevent intrusion."
  • "I'd like to have better access to workstation monitoring, connection monitoring, and the amount of time an address is being used, to better gauge proper network utilization. If I knew that something was connected to a particular external location for an extended period that seems abnormal, I'd be able to act upon it."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use case is protection for my network from external access. We also use it for some VPN, but mostly it's for protection. It's mixed usage on about a dozen different connections, a dozen different workstations, and access points.

How has it helped my organization?

I don't really worry about individual workstation security as much, anymore. I can depend upon the firewall to control incoming viruses, incoming attacks, bad port usage.

It simplifies my job because I don't have to worry about it on a day-to-day basis, the way I otherwise would. I'm not checking and monitoring each workstation on a minute-by-minute basis. I can check what's going on with the firewall and see how it's being used and where, and if there are any things coming through the logs.

I've built my process around the WatchGuard. I can't say it has saved me time because it's become the defacto process. I don't have anything against which to compare it.

What is most valuable?

  • Intrusion Prevention is my primary focus so that's what I find most useful. The why is straightforward: It's to prevent intrusion.
  • The usability is pretty good. 
  • The throughput of the solution is also pretty good. I think there is some throttling that occurs.
  • It provides me the layered security I need.

What needs improvement?

There are some features I'd like to see, although they are not standard in any of the products in this class; for example, better monitoring.

I'd like to have better access to workstation monitoring, connection monitoring, and the amount of time an address is being used, to better gauge proper network utilization. If I knew that something was connected to a particular external location for an extended period that seems abnormal, I'd be able to act upon it. It comes down to overall monitoring and reporting for the class of services that I have.

The solution's reporting and management features, based on what I have, are fair. I'd like to see an easier way of managing, controlling, and viewing usage at an IP-address-based level.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for about five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's very stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

WatchGuard's product line is very scalable, but this particular product is not.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is pretty good. The online knowledge base is usually the best way to go. But I have had some telephone support as well.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I had been using SonicWall for about ten years. I got a little frustrated with them at around the time that Dell purchased them. The WatchGuard UI is easier to manage and easier to work through. I ultimately became dissatisfied with the service and ongoing costs of the SonicWall devices.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. They walked me through it. I have enough knowledge to be able to walk through the setup and then tweak it the way I need it. I was able to find anything that was unusual, pretty easily, on the web.

The initial deployment took under an hour. I've spent dozens of hours tweaking it over the years, but nothing out of the ordinary.

The implementation strategy was to set up something that allowed for VPN access, to grow VPN access, and that would protect my workstations against viruses and attacks, as well as my servers. The goal was to simplify everything with one box.

For deployment and maintenance, it's just one person who handles the network, and that is me.

What about the implementation team?

I did it myself.

What was our ROI?

I'm not sure I could establish a numerical return on investment. It's mostly peace of mind. I could probably do well with a lesser product, but I'm afraid a lesser product would provide significantly less protection.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It costs me about $800 a year. There any no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I looked at some Cisco products. I only upgraded to this latest T35 last year, from the previous WatchGuard item. I also looked at SonicWall and a couple of others.

What other advice do I have?

It's used extensively. Do I plan to increase usage? If I can get better reporting, perhaps. But it's fully deployed and static at this point.

I would rate WatchGuard a seven out of ten. A perfect ten would come from lower costs for small installations for the service licensing, and improved reporting. And maybe some better awareness of what it's capable of doing. It's hard to figure out what I could do. That's a big thing. It's hard to figure out what is possible. What am I not taking advantage of? I've tried to work with people on that, and that's the biggest thing.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
I.T. Manager at a construction company with 201-500 employees
Real User
A global map allows us to block an IP based on the country it's coming from
Pros and Cons
  • "The Dimension control, the one-spot reporting and control, has been nice. It's been easy to go in and make sure people are doing what they're supposed to be doing and that only the right stuff is getting in."
  • "A 12-hour power outage... got our batteries."

What is our primary use case?

We use them as our firewall in every location. It's extensively used and our locations for it are ever-expanding. Right now, we have 14 locations with them. We have everything from the M300 to the T50-W to the T30-W.

How has it helped my organization?

Like any other firewall, if it goes down, it's going to cause problems but these don't go down.

If I had to spend half my day fighting the stuff that it's keeping out, in that sense, it's increasing productivity. But if I was having to do that, I would find something else.

What is most valuable?

There are a lot of features I really like.

One of them is that the interface is more intuitive for us. And the success rate has been very good for us. It's easier to use than a SonicWall. There's a learning curve with every firewall, but this one is a lot more intuitive than some of the other ones I've used.

We've been very happy with the throughput and the performance the solution provides.

The Dimension control, the one-spot reporting and control, has been nice. It's been easy to go in and make sure people are doing what they're supposed to be doing and that only the right stuff is getting in.

It provides us with layered security.

It's got a global map where you can block IP based on which country it's coming from. I haven't seen that on anything else.

For how long have I used the solution?

I started here in 2009 and they already had the WatchGuard at that time. So I've been using it for about ten years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

They work. We don't have to boot them. 

The only time they get booted is if there is a major, extended loss of power. Otherwise, they just stay up and running. The location I'm at has been up for 90 days and the only reason it went down 90 days ago was that we had about a 12-hour power outage. It got our batteries. It got everything. But like I said, they're reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There is scalability because they have different models to choose from, as long as you buy right.

We have 500 employees and about 150 users. I'm sure we have plans to increase usage. In terms of how extensively it is being used, it's filtering every piece of internet traffic we have.

How are customer service and technical support?

I haven't had to use their technical support in about seven years.

How was the initial setup?

When it comes to installing a new box, it's pretty simple. We have a config we copy over to it and then we just customize that config with the IP addressing that we need at that location. It doesn't get much easier than that. It takes less than an hour and takes one person to deploy it.

What about the implementation team?

We used a third-party integrator when we did our mass upgrade in 2017. At that time, all of our other ones had become end-of-life. They were Firebox Edges. We bought the boxes, dumped the configs on them, between us and the third-party, and either I or the third-party would deliver and install. Onsite downtime was as little as ten minutes.

Deploying it to distributed locations was super-simple.

What was our ROI?

We haven't had anything get through it. It's hard to say what your return on investment is when you're saving problems. You can't quantify how many possible threats you're saving in a day.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We bought ours bundled with two or three years at the time we bought them. I haven't seen the pricing since 2017, but it was competitive. SonicWall, Barracuda, and WatchGuard were all about the same price when we did our last pricing.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We investigated SonicWall back in about 2016 and decided to stay with WatchGuard because we felt the interface was a lot better. It's also easier to manage, easier to keep an eye on. We really despised the SonicWall. The support for it was awful. Dell already had it and it was bad. I had experience with SonicWall in the past, before it was a Dell company. The SonicWalls were pretty good then.

We looked into Barracuda. We didn't actually test it. We used some other Barracuda stuff, but we didn't actually even test their firewall. I don't remember why we didn't go with them. That was a decision made three years ago. We use their backup appliance and couldn't be happier with it, so it wasn't a support issue or a reputation issue. I don't know if there was a little difference in pricing which was the reason that we didn't try it.

We investigated the other one, we actually put the test box in, and Firebox was far superior to what we tested.

What other advice do I have?

Give Firebox a good, strong look. Give it a test run and I'm sure you'll be happy with it. We've always had it. Our opinion of it is that it flat-out works and we're very satisfied with it.

I'm sure there are better ones out there for somebody who has more time to manage it. But if you're looking for something so that you don't need a dedicated staff to manage it, I'd say this is a pretty good one. I give it a nine out of ten.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
Arkadiusz Charuba - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Specialist/Admin at a legal firm with 11-50 employees
Real User
Fast, reasonably priced, and reliable
Pros and Cons
  • "It has everything we need in terms of functionality."
  • "The UI and web view aren't nice."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution to secure our networks in branch via SSL and VPN. We also use it for our web pages hosted on our servers. This product handled everything UTM.

How has it helped my organization?

The solution has benefitted us by offering a secure connection. We don't spend as much time analyzing when traffic goes somewhere. We have clearance capabilities. We see what happens in our network.

What is most valuable?

The hardware is quite good.

The solution is fast. When we commit and change items in Firebox. It just works and it is simple. When you drop a connection, it gets dropped in a second. The speed is important to us.

It has everything we need in terms of functionality.

The solution is scalable.

It is stable and reliable. 

Pricing is reasonable. 

What needs improvement?

The UI and web view aren't nice. The fonts are too small, for example. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for three years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is very stable. I haven't seen any issues with it. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. I'd rate it nine out of ten in terms of stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution can scale quite well. If a company needs to expand, it can. I'd rate the ability to scale at an eight or a nine out of ten. It's easy.

How are customer service and support?

I've never directly reached out to technical support.

How was the initial setup?

When we need to make something really good, we need to take the time to ensure that's the case. However, the configurations are simple.

What about the implementation team?

We had a business help us implement the solution. 

What was our ROI?

So far, the solution has been worth the cost.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The product isn't necessarily expensive to acquire. The pricing is reasonable. 

There are no extra costs or hidden fees. 

What other advice do I have?

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been pleased with the product overall. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Download our free WatchGuard Firebox Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
Updated: March 2024
Buyer's Guide
Download our free WatchGuard Firebox Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.