We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Software Technologies, Cisco, Sophos and others in Unified Threat Management (UTM)."Traffic Shaping: The device lets you decide how you want to use your internet services. Due to the fact that Meraki can accept dual WAN, you can decide the way you balance the data traffic."
"Easy to deploy with a simple configuration."
"The most valuable feature of Meraki MX is I can manage the solution from anywhere remotely, I can throttle bandwidth, and create all rules. Additionally, it is secure for our customers."
"In general, Meraki MX is easy to work with."
"I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard."
"The initial setup for me was straightforward."
"The security level of our organization has changed by using Meraki MX Firewalls. We didn't have the UTM before, but now we have sandboxing, tray scanning, attack preventions and monitorization. Our security level has improved."
"To me, the analytics feature is one of the most valuable in Meraki MX. I also find that it has good usability as it's cloud-based. Another valuable feature of Meraki MX is that it's simple to use and it's user-friendly."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks WildFire are the good URL and file analysis that uses artificial intelligence. It has different interfaces, such as rest, SMTP protocol, and HTTPS. The Security incidents and event management are very good. Additionally, there are many file types that are supported and there is no limit to the number of files it can handle simultaneously. It integrates well with SIEM solutions."
"My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway."
"A good tool for file scanning and email threat detection, especially when it comes to attachments and communications."
"Installing this product as a datacenter firewall for segregation and segmentation, and also configuring policies between zones has improved my organization."
"The reporting feature helps our performance."
"The solution handles DSD segregation and monitors the gateways"
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable. We currently have six thousand users for the product."
"When we do API integrations with Meraki, they have always been hard as well as tedious to build. The data that we want out of the API integrations has been only recently available. Six months ago, it was hard to get someone to build something correctly or useful with Meraki APIs. Recently, they have made more data available on the API, but it is just a start. They need to do more."
"Direct logging is something that can be introduced. In the absence of cloud management, the possibility of local configurations and on-premise logins becomes restricted. This limitation stands as a primary concern. When it comes to resolving issues, the inability to access login options hampers troubleshooting efforts. The stability is noteworthy; but when compared to alternative products, its stability is comparatively lower. Additionally, certain limitations are observed in terms of remote control. Price-wise, the solution stands out for its competitive and cost-effective nature compared to other alternatives. Operationally, it is user-friendly and requires minimal effort from administrators, making configuration hassle-free."
"It would be nice if the different services, including the SIEM SOC and endpoint detection and response (EDR) were integrated into one, so that I don't have to go to different vendors for different services."
"It can be hard to get a hold of the solution’s technical support team."
"The problem is that the two licenses do not currently integrate. We have to create separate companies and do an interconnection."
"Could possibly use deeper configurations."
"The configuration options for firewall and IPS have limitations."
"We had minor issues with Meraki MX. We had a couple of RMAs, so that could be an area for improvement, but in terms of how the RMAs went, the turnaround time and getting those back into redeployment were quick. Another area for improvement in Meraki MX is that when you're scaling for multiple locations, you need to use the same model, but the model you'd need is only available for a short time. The specific model you require could be out of stock, or Meraki isn't making that model anymore, so Meraki should improve that."
"The system uptime data is unavailable"
"The initial setup was complex."
"The deployment model could be better."
"The global product feature needs improvement, the VPN, and we need some enhanced features."
"The only problem with this solution is the cost. It's expensive."
"I don't think it needs to improve anything, except maybe the speed to deploy the changes."
"The product fails to offer protection when dealing with high-severity vulnerabilities, making it an area of concern where improvements are required."
"There are some formats that the solution cannot support ."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 60 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 60 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Offers firewall protection to data centers along with DSD segregation and gateway monitoring ". Meraki MX is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG and SonicWall TZ, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Proofpoint Email Protection.
We monitor all Unified Threat Management (UTM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.