WatchGuard Firebox is only deployed in one location within my customer's organization, and at the other locations, we are using Meraki and FortiGate. We plan to replace WatchGuard Firebox soon. My impression of the spam blocking capabilities of WatchGuard is not very favorable, as I don't think it is very capable. I haven't noticed effective web ratings or IPS signatures, which may be due to managing an older OS; I'm not certain about the performance of the newer versions. I am not aware of whether the transition to faster ports on WatchGuard Firebox supports maintaining productivity levels during peak usage times. Based on my experience, I would rate WatchGuard Firebox as five out of ten overall.
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.
Consultant at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Reseller
Top 5
May 13, 2025
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.
My only issue with Firebox is the grouping issue. I recommend Firebox since this device will not let anyone down. If someone drives a Volkswagen, they may find it challenging to switch to another car. It is the same with WatchGuard; once someone adopts this device, they will likely not buy another. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.
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.
In selecting security solutions, it's essential to consider the overall support and long-term ease of use. WatchGuard products, including firewalls, tend to be easier to configure and use compared to some cheaper alternatives. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
The endpoint itself is an agent. It is implemented on-prem, but the management can be done on-prem or in the cloud. We recommend the solution. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
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.
IT at a manufacturing company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Dec 15, 2020
I'm not sure if I would recommend the product. My experiences are based on what we've seen in terms of response to our network environment. Maybe other companies have a good international network and maybe they would have not this issue. It's hard to say. In any case, we've had issues. Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. Maybe they shouldn't be in the Chinese market.
Owner / CEO at Midwest Technology Specialists LLC.
Real User
Jul 9, 2020
We're a service provider and have been for a number of years. I'm a consultant. The solution is part of the firewall and the UTM. It's never really handled as a separate entity, though it is licensed. It's part of their unified threat bundle. I've used almost all of the current GUI interfaces. The antivirus has changed the backend engine a couple of times over the years. The current revision, I believe, is Bitdefender driven, but I'm not exactly 100% sure. I'd advise other organizations, when setting up the solution, to configure all proxies and policies prior to doing the subscription service setup. If the policies are pre-configured and your proxies are set up prior to activating the security antivirus or the Gateway AntiVirus, 90% of the configuration is done for you. You only find yourself manually doing it if you are building rules after the fact. As an antivirus and standalone product, I would rate the solution seven out of ten. The main reason is, as a gateway appliance, it does not have the capability to perform the same function as an endpoint antivirus. It is not a substitute for endpoint antivirus.
WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus has VPN access for all systems. It's a firewall and an anti-virus agent. It's fully complete for my company. I would recommend the solution. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at ten.
WatchGuard Firebox is a high-performance firewall known for its ease of setup, offering robust security with layered protection and centralized management capabilities.WatchGuard Firebox stands out for its intuitive management and high throughput, addressing security needs with features like VPN, web filtering, and threat detection. Its centralized control and reporting abilities, along with Active Directory integration, make it popular among varied organizations. Its user-friendly interface...
WatchGuard Firebox is only deployed in one location within my customer's organization, and at the other locations, we are using Meraki and FortiGate. We plan to replace WatchGuard Firebox soon. My impression of the spam blocking capabilities of WatchGuard is not very favorable, as I don't think it is very capable. I haven't noticed effective web ratings or IPS signatures, which may be due to managing an older OS; I'm not certain about the performance of the newer versions. I am not aware of whether the transition to faster ports on WatchGuard Firebox supports maintaining productivity levels during peak usage times. Based on my experience, I would rate WatchGuard Firebox as five out of ten overall.
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.
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.
My only issue with Firebox is the grouping issue. I recommend Firebox since this device will not let anyone down. If someone drives a Volkswagen, they may find it challenging to switch to another car. It is the same with WatchGuard; once someone adopts this device, they will likely not buy another. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.
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.
In selecting security solutions, it's essential to consider the overall support and long-term ease of use. WatchGuard products, including firewalls, tend to be easier to configure and use compared to some cheaper alternatives. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
The endpoint itself is an agent. It is implemented on-prem, but the management can be done on-prem or in the cloud. We recommend the solution. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
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.
I'm not sure if I would recommend the product. My experiences are based on what we've seen in terms of response to our network environment. Maybe other companies have a good international network and maybe they would have not this issue. It's hard to say. In any case, we've had issues. Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. Maybe they shouldn't be in the Chinese market.
We're a service provider and have been for a number of years. I'm a consultant. The solution is part of the firewall and the UTM. It's never really handled as a separate entity, though it is licensed. It's part of their unified threat bundle. I've used almost all of the current GUI interfaces. The antivirus has changed the backend engine a couple of times over the years. The current revision, I believe, is Bitdefender driven, but I'm not exactly 100% sure. I'd advise other organizations, when setting up the solution, to configure all proxies and policies prior to doing the subscription service setup. If the policies are pre-configured and your proxies are set up prior to activating the security antivirus or the Gateway AntiVirus, 90% of the configuration is done for you. You only find yourself manually doing it if you are building rules after the fact. As an antivirus and standalone product, I would rate the solution seven out of ten. The main reason is, as a gateway appliance, it does not have the capability to perform the same function as an endpoint antivirus. It is not a substitute for endpoint antivirus.
WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus has VPN access for all systems. It's a firewall and an anti-virus agent. It's fully complete for my company. I would recommend the solution. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at ten.