Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

We primarily use Juniper SRX for two functions: site-to-site VPN and VPN for Easy Connect. The VPN provides security for remote work. We also use it for a firewall.

One of Juniper SRX's most valuable features is the site-to-site VPN. 

I would like to have a better web UI for administration. Juniper could simplify the web UI and make it more compatible with mobile devices. In particular, I'm thinking about our remote offices, where we don't have dedicated IT personnel. Let's say someone from the office staff was working via smartphone. If the web UI were more compatible with mobile devices, the administration could manage IT support from a team that is not in their location. It would make it simpler for small companies to deploy these devices. I also think the documentation is lacking.

I've been using Juniper SRX for seven years.

In terms of stability, I would rate SRX nine out of 10. For performance, we're usually satisfied, so about eight of 10.

This model of SRX we use is not a scalable solution. It's near its maximum capacity for encryption, traffic, and features.

Juniper support was great. When we reported a critical issue, they responded with recommended fixes within four hours.

Regarding customer service, we prefer working with a company that lets us directly purchase their solutions worldwide using something like an internet store, so we don't have to go through partners or dealers. We currently deliver such solutions in many countries, and each country has its local vendor. 

Sometimes we can't rely on this delivery method because we haven't tried it yet in these countries, so it's not reliable to open new offices in foreign countries due to some restrictions, regulations, and price administration for networks. This is a problem. So it would be great if Juniper could deliver equipment that we purchase directly on some internet shop instead of using a local dealer or service center.

Deploying SRX was straightforward because our environment was ready for it. We used our own IT team and deployment took about two weeks. It was a normal step-by-step process. As for maintenance, SRX usually requires software updates and nothing more. We've installed it in a suitable environment in the server room, so it doesn't require a lot of additional maintenance.

I'm not sure we are satisfied fully with the pricetag of Juniper SRX, but we understand why the dealer prices it this way. Still, we are not satisfied when we try to get prices for competitor products. Sometimes, it can be tense like this.

When you consider performance, price, and features, maybe Juniper is not so cost-effective compared to other solutions like MikroTik. On the one hand, MikroTik might have better performance and much more features than Juniper. However, Juniper is more reliable and has different approval, certifications, and standard capability features. MikroTik does a lot of the same functions but doesn't have the same certifications. MikroTik is less expensive. The device price of MikroTik is $200 versus $6,000 with SRX. In the end, we chose SRX because it was on a list of solutions approved by our remote parties. One of our customers needed to have this type of VPN to work with our company.

I rate Juniper SRX eight out of 10. I recommend it. There are two vendors — Juniper and Cisco— that we recommend for the production environment of any kind of build.

Fast packet mover, uptime.

Stability in a heavy Microsoft environment, RPC communication.

5 years.

Numerous deplyoment issues, very early product at the time.

Numerous deployment issues, very early product at the time.

No scalability issues at all, very good for scalability.

Very impressive, but you have to know the inner workings of JTAC.

Very impressive, but you have to know the inner workings of JTAC. Juniper has a very effective 24/7 Follow The Sun.

Juniper SSG, switched because of capacity and change of focus from Juniper.

Be aware if you need RPC. Out of 18 software versions only 2 has been without issues with RPC.

We primarily use this solution for data center segregation.

The features that are most valuable are the high-speed interfaces and MPLS.

The throughput when using features can be improved.

100-gigabit interfaces should be added into the next release because we'd like to adopt them.

The solution's stability is very good.

The scalability of the solution is limited.

We did use a different solution. The old boxes were at end of life.

The initial setup was complex because we have a complex network.

I find that the interfaces are okay. The big thing is performance. With all the features turned on it slows down.

The advice I would give to everyone is to specify a larger box than you think you need.

Due to the performance indications, I'd rate this product as a 7 out of 10.

We use it as a perimeter firewall, data center firewall, and as VPN concentrators for some companies. It protects the data behind our switches. Our company provides the switches, like the EX-Series. 

We are an elite partners for Juniper. We use the firewall for data protection.

It has a high security implementation.

It integrates well with Fortinet and Palo Alto.

It uses many applications, like antivirus blocking and web filtering. Also, defining routing on it is very easy along with netting. The high availability of the application is good. We use the IDS and IPsec VPN features.

I would like to see endpoint control and endpoint testing security.

The GUI needs to be easier to handle.

The stability is good.

The scalability is good.

When we face problems, it is a firmware or software update. We call Juniper for support and they have a very good team for technical support. They help us a lot, then we will find the solution in the upgraded version of software of unit. 

I think there was a problem before I came to the company with Cisco and their firewall, so they decided to switch to Juniper.

It is more complex than other vendors, but we have gotten used to it. So, we find it easy to implement and deploy.

It has a low price.

We are also using Fortinet and have a partnership with Palo Alto. In addition, we are looking into a partnership with Citrix.

Cisco and FortiGate were on original shortlist.

They can use the Juniper SRX as a data center firewall. Juniper needs to focus more on their perimeter firewalls.

Our most important criteria is to look for 24-hour support, prices, partnerships, and what they offer to partners. Also, we want to know if the product can function with Juniper.

The solution is primarily used in two ways: to protect our three data centers and servers. It works at protecting both areas from malicious attacks.

We have worked with the solution for a while and therefore have become quite versed in it. We're comfortable with its tech and have a good understanding of how best to use it. 

The initial setup was easy.

In terms of usability, there are good forums on offer and they've got a lot of technical documentation for everything. 

Technical support is good. They quickly respond, and they even have local help here. They can actually give you an answer very quickly.

The solution has been stable over the years.

The capacity can be limiting. We have outgrown its capacity. You can only scale up to a certain extent, depending on the device purchased. 

There are cheaper options on the market.

The reporting and alerts could be improved. If you had alerts, whereby you can have things like intrusion detection systems quickly alerting the security managers of a breach would be helpful. 

They need to work on the user interface. Most tasks are done by commands, and if you don't have experience using the command line, it's terrible. They should make it easier.

We've only been using the latest solution for a few days. It's quite new to us. It replaced a previous version, which we had for five years. 

The stability is quite good. It's very reliable as long as your power is okay. It's a good device and good software and is a great piece of equipment, however, if your power has any issues, then you are likely to lose it after power surges.

Scalability is limited and you need the right sizing. In our case, our device has reached the end of life, and there are no more plugins that we can actually use.

We're quite satisfied with technical support. They are very helpful and responsive and there is good documentation.

We've also used Cyberoam, which is now Sophos. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. It's an easy process and not very difficult or complex. 

The license we have now is perpetual, however, going forward, with a newer version, we're looking at annual or bi-annual licensing. 

The cost is not cheap or overly expensive. It's middle of the road. 

We are just a customer.

It's a good device overall. I'd recommend it to other users and companies. As long as a customer is buying something that is supported and has a good lifespan, they should be happy.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

One valuable feature is the reliability of the Junos OS. However, we did not make full use of the UTM functionality.

We have experienced more dependability.

Management: Junos Space Security Director is not great and there is no global database of objects.

We have been using the product for about six years.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

The clustering of a maximum of two nodes limited some architectural options.

Support is what the end customer buys. Unfortunately, it's not always from Juniper.

We migrated from Juniper Screen OS to Junos. We are leaving Juniper now as their focus on security seems to have dropped.

The setup was no more difficult than switching to any other firewall implementation.

Be wary of Juniper's stake in the security realm. If they are ramping up again and are again competing with Check Point, Palo Alto, and FortiGate, then they are worthy of consideration. It is also worth your consideration if your network is Juniper based and you have a secondary firewall vendor.

We use it for the firewall.

It's fine, and it's good. It's very stable.

It could be more secure.

I have been using Juniper SRX for about five years.

Very stable. These firewalls are stable.

We had Cisco, but when comparing the price, Juniper SRX was cheaper.

I would recommend this solution to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Juniper SRX an eight. 

Stateful inspection , IPSEC and NAT as per our customers' design. The boxes are used as SecGW, Gi and SGi Firewall, those are the features usually needed in 3G/4G context.

It improved in term of security.

Clustering fab interface doesn't support bandwidth aggregation. This limitation caused a huge design change in our network.

I've used the solution for eight years.

Yes, some bugs in module restart and cluster failover, but without outage.

Yes, fab interface doesn't support bandwidth aggregation

9 out of 10.

No, we didn't.

Not complex.

We didn’t use any other solutions so I can’t compare this to others.

No.

We are satisfied with its stability , but we don’t advise others to implement a cluster design other than Active/Passive.