Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

We are using this product as our Firewall.

The configuration is difficult and it should be easier.

I have been using Juniper SRX for three years.

Juniper is stable and I haven't had any problems.

The hardware is scalable and we have about 500 users.

Juniper supports their products very well.

I have experience with Fortinet and Sophos and I found that the installation and configuration were easier with these solutions.

This product is easy to install but difficult to configure. It takes perhaps three hours to deploy.

I completed the deployment myself. There are three people who work on it, including two administrators and the head of Network Infrastructure.

We plan on buying an SRX370 within the next year.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We leverage this as a firewall and for IT tech services. It's more of a firewall used in a router sorting device. I see major benefits from leveraging it like this.

This is a product on the customer side, not in our services. What I have identified so far is that, considering the complex deployment that the customer wanted to make, the scalability with the feature support that they already have, and its functionality provided, Juniper SRX was one of the better products available. It helped us to scale well with that product customer requirement because they wanted the IT side on a virtual router, with a firewall so it was integrated to work. Such a complex setup cannot be easily accomplished by just using a firewall. SRX actually helps us scale and integrate the product according to customer requirements. It also helped us with its routing capabilities which eased the cost, because otherwise I would have had to take a router and firewall, and then integrate it. With this, however, it was an integration of firewall and routing services all together in a single product. That was one thing that I loved about it.

IPS is something that I do not find valuable, but the other features are awesome. Firewall IP second router is good, but IPS needs to be worked upon.

IPS, or IDS services, need improvement. Their major problem is that you have to integrate it with MSN or web building services, you need to buy support for that and services but you cannot. The best thing that I see was a filtering service with custom categories that I can create. If I buy a license, I can integrate it with a different product, but their own web building services is poor. So they can improve web building services, as well as look for application awareness, and maybe, with IPS, they can have their own built-in services rather than integration with MSN for using IPS. There are three things that can be improved.

IPS is one that I would definitely want to be improved. I would also like SSL VPN to be integrated. Other than that, I guess it's doing a firewall, so I would say it's cool. Next in features, I would want that to be included, along with SSL VPN, if possible. Other than that for the product, I don't think there's a need for doing anything with this.

More than 7 or 8 years

It's cool. I would say it's one of the most stable services. Providing for redundancy is a bit challenging, but it actually is something that can be worked upon because they have a different concept of highway building, as opposed to general people doing stuff. I would say it is a good, stable product, except for the problematic part of it. If people are not aware of how to deal with it, it can be very cumbersome.

You can scale it well, but when you scale you need to take a product out to another one. On a scale level, it's a very good scalable product. It's a good firewall so if you pump it in high traffic, it will be able to adapt to it, unless and until you outgrow its throughput. Then you would either have to get a new model or maybe if you have to avert your firewall, you might have to upgrade it to a new version. So far it's a good product.

This was for a 1,000 user base.

You don't need extra staff to maintain the solution. Unless and until you have a problem of lags or circuit issues, I don't think you need extra staff. One SE should be fine with this product.

I think there will be future plans to increase usage and get more devices. We are also trying to leverage this into a cloud platform, so there would be some more usage.

The technical support or tech team is good. So far, when I worked with them, they have been able to resolve issues firmly. If they cannot do it, they connect you with someone you can work with, so they can just connect to the engineering team. Their data services is something which is really good.

However, their documentation is a bit more challenging. They have unsourced to work, like knowledge base articles and stuff, but they would need to work a bit more on the documentation to compare with Cisco documentation. That's something that they can improve on. They have good documentation. The documentations are clear, but there is not sufficient content available.

The initial setup was very simple. I would say it was the simplest one to date.

Deployment time depends on the solution. This was a very complex one, so it took us four weeks to get the most complexity out of it. I think taking a single deployment, it would not be more than a couple of hours. If you are already working with Juniper products, it would be a couple of hours. If you're not working with Juniper products, maybe a week, not more than a week.

I did the implementation myself, I don't normally take help but in scenarios where documentation is not available, I do go ahead and refer it out but this was simple. I don't think I needed the technical support staff, but I have worked with Juniper tech for certain scenarios in integrating this. It was tax-supported, non-profit services.

There was no additional licensing cost because there were no IPS services. It was just a firewall IP circuit router so they have the default licensing. We just need to renew the support yearly.

Our customer evaluated Palo Alto also. They liked it, and even integrated it, but the scalability requirements they had were an issue. They loved Palo Alto for the security services, but their requirement was routing and security in a single device. That's the reason they were not able to go with the Palo Alto services, but they chose Juniper.

If you're looking for a product that can give you routing as well as security services, and you're not looking for too much taxing on the security part, I guess this is a good product. If, however, you're looking for security services on a greater edge, maybe something like next-gen firewall features, referencing services, or IPS to a greater level, I would recommend going with other security products. If you want integration of both, you can use this, and maybe if you evaluate, or move forward with better services over a period of time and better models of that, maybe this is something that you can always look for both, routing as well as security services.

SRX is a security product that's not that good on security, but it's good at routing, so they actually balance out. I would rate them around six of ten. 

Cisco does one thing right. Cisco has AnyConnect so they can fully integrate SSL routing services. Previously Juniper used to have Pulse Secure and MAG devices. They sold it off to Pulse Secure, but maybe they could try to integrate SSL VPN with their products. Maybe that would help them increase market share.

We use the solution for our transport domain's server. We handle booking and billing using the solution.

I got to learn CLI after purchasing the solution. It counts as a benefit for me.

The solution's valuable features are excellent customer service and stability.

They should work on the pricing. I am using VPN and need to pay for its warranty and license separately. It needs to be addressed.

We have been using the solution for three years now.

It is a stable solution. We never faced any issues there.

If you have experience using the solution, it is scalable. 

The solution's initial setup process was lengthy as I was new to Juniper. I had to explore and learn the steps to implement the solution. Even after that, there was no guarantee that it would work fine. So that wasn't very easy.

I suggest adding more articles or blogs regarding the deployment and configuration part.

We had an engineer to help us deploy it, and the process lasted nearly six months.

I rate the solution's pricing as a four.

The solution is relatively easy and inexpensive to maintain. Also, I advise others to add chargeable features in the initial setup. If it increases the price of the device, that's fine.

I rate the solution as a seven.

We use the virtual on-premises in our data centers.

The reason that we picked Juniper SRX is for the scalability, the fit for purpose, the tools that are available, the ongoing support, and the ability to monitor, but particularly for the virtual routers in our data centers so that we can quickly upscale them when needed, when we need more throughput.

In the last year, we've started to roll out Juniper SRX for new sites. It has only been a couple, but we'll have about 10 to 15 sites within the next month in the new framework, and we'll also be putting a virtual SRX router at our gateway in our data centers as well.

We are using the latest version. It's not finalized to install yet. I expect it to be finalized next week in our city and Melbourne data centers.

So far they've been good in terms of stability.

The scalability has been very good so far.

We've got 420 staff using it, plus two of my internal team and two of my MSPs, four people,  working on the network stuff.

We have been in touch with support and they've been good. During the configuration stages, we had a couple of tickets and they were responsive to it.

The first configuration with my network experts took a little bit of time to work through the differences between their knowledge of the Huawei networking and the Juniper set-up and the change from all the Huawei to the Juniper and Sophos access points. The first install took a couple of weeks to configure the actual hardware, and then on site, what we expected to take half a day in the first instance probably took a week, but once we did one, we've been ok rolling out the next ones after that.

In terms of the initial setup being straightforward, that depends on your knowledge of the product. Juniper has been fairly responsive when my team has asked them questions. So it has taken us longer to install than I would've hoped, but that's one of those things when you change your products.

There is a component of monthly and yearly costs depending on the product.

Ongoing costs are something that we need to manage and make sure that we're getting value on. But with feeding the data back in and the capability, we're hoping that it will pay for itself in the monitoring tools and the ability to go past just the different baselines of stability and scalability to actually make sure that we're proactive in keeping our networks alive.

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

The main thing is cost. Having said that, it's not ridiculous, but you're always looking for the best value, and them bringing out the virtual cores has been really good. The cost is more expensive, but you're getting a bang for your buck. They are very good value for money in their product.

The overall, ongoing costs of licensing has added to my budget, but until I get long-term experience and make sure that it's running as expected, I can't say it's everything that I expected.

We use Juniper SRX as a firewall mainly, for security and securing the network.

Juniper SRX is a very powerful firewall and sometimes can be used as a router.

I think Juniper SRX should have a GUI. Some of the competitors are already implementing GUI for the firewall.

I have been working with Juniper SRX for sixteen years.

Juniper SRX is a stable solution.

The scalability of Juniper SRX is acceptable.

Technical support initially is not that fast, if the case requires escalation, the other levels of support are fast.

The setup is a straightforward configuration, but the security customization may take time.

I would rate Juniper SRX a nine out of ten.

I like the Junos OS, which has been very good for me. It's very clever. I can find everything I want, I can commit changes, and I can throwback. I think it has very good features. I like Juniper because of Junos.

I think it needs some automation. I have to find an API for Python and so on, which is quite different from a typical solution. Sometimes committing configurations takes a lot of time in Juniper because of the connections, and it could be a little bit faster. Their documentation could also be better.

I've been using Juniper SRX for about ten years.

Juniper SRX is very stable.

It's not very scalable because you need some experience with Juniper. I know that it's difficult for people who are familiar with Cisco to start Junos. Compared to Cisco, 
Juniper also has very bad documentation.

I think technical support is good.

We're also using Check Point at the moment.

The initial setup is easy for me because I have some papers with notes that help me.

The price is reasonable.

I would advise people interested in using this solution to start learning Junos.

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

We primarily use the solution for a small office.

The solution works very well in small offices.

The CLI works perfectly.

Technical support has been very helpful overall.

They offer very good administration capabilities.

The solution could cost less. It's a bit expensive right now.

The solution sometimes takes a long time to deliver the products. We're often waiting for stock. They should just have the product available and ready to go when customers need it.

I've been using the solution for about 15 years at this point. It's been a long time. It's been well over a decade.

The solution is pretty stable. We haven't had any issues in that regard. It's reliable.

The solution can scale, however, it's often difficult to get a hold of the product itself. We're often waiting on orders.

The solution seems to work well in small offices. I'm not sure how well it would do in larger enterprises.

The solution offers very good technical support. We've found them to be helpful and responsive. We don't have anything to complain about. Their service has been good so far.

We did previously use a solution called NetScreen.

The pricing is a bit expensive. They need to work on their pricing models.

We're currently looking at Fortinet as an option. Currently, this solution is fine for a smaller office, however, we're curious to see if there's a solution that may be better suited for a larger setup.

We're an official Juniper partner.

I don't typically work with the user interface. I deal more often with the CLI, and that works very well. I'm not really able to comment too much on usability for those who need a user interface to operate the solution.

I'd recommend the solution. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight. For the most part, we've been pretty happy with it.

We primarily use the solution for the SD-WAN solution, not the firewall. We use it to protect the perimeter of the client. It's like a firewall for the perimeter.

The application control features are excellent.

The solution has been good for fulfilling our basic needs.

Our operational team handles the solution more than I do. I personally haven't seen any features that are missing per se.

The solution isn't very granular or detailed. However, we're just using the basics anyway.

The product could have a quicker response when it comes to technical support getting back when we have questions.

We've been using the solution for one year.

The stability overall has been okay. It's working. We have the solution in production now for almost a month. At this moment, I haven't heard of any complaints of the stability, or of any bugs within this product.

Typically, we deal with medium-sized organizations.

The solution doesn't have scalability due to the fact that it is a fixed WAN and therefore it's limited to its hardware. You can't scale that to attend to a bigger organization. It's limited. It was created to a specific size; it was not created to scale. It doesn't have this option. 

Technical support has been very good. I would rate it a nine out of ten. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we've been provided so far. However, they could improve slightly by increasing their time to respond. They can be a bit slow.

As resellers, we deal with a variety of products including Cisco and Fortinet.

The initial setup wasn't too complex. It was pretty straightforward. We didn't really face any problems during implementation.

The deployment takes about 20 minutes. This without the client tests and just the configuration and no validation. Everything that was necessary was applied, however, not with the tests as it took too much of the client's time, and would have took much longer.

We buy the license from our reseller and implement the license for our clients.

With Jupiter, we sell IT services such as perimeter security. The client can buy his own firewall or we can buy it for the clients if they would like us to. 

We don't have a focus on selling equipment, however.

We are a reseller. We don't use the product ourselves. We implement solutions such as this for our clients.

I'd advise those considering the solution to gather the most information possible and organize it so that you can configure the firewall according to the company's needs. The relationship between the information that we get and what the client needs at the firewall, the real needs, is important.

Overall, we've been happy with the solution and I would rate it a nine out of ten.