Juniper SRX Series Firewall Reviews

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.

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.

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 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.

Firewall for a lab environment.

Before, we were handling everything with a Vyatta server until our network became more complex.

Stability.

The device could be more user-friendly.

• Form factor: It is small, very nimble, and can be deployed in very small environments which do not have wiring closets.
• Consolidation: It combines routing, switching, and firewall services in one device.
• Stable OS: There is a one Junos release training for all the Juniper products, thus minimizes the training needed and enhances interoperability.
• Open standards: The Juniper OS is based on the open standards and making it very interoperable in the mixed vendor environments.
• Superior performance: This can be achieved by true separation of control and data plane, hence data plane inefficiencies do not affect the control plane and vice versa.
• Cloud-enabled device: The SRX300 is cloud-ready and can be used to implement SDSN in micro-environments.

It has greatly reduced the network management functions by reducing the number of devices to manage (one vs three), and easy fault management using the new GUI.

Disaggregation (this is available in the box) should be improved to include software intelligence that is actionable.

I have used this solution for about four and a half years.

There were no stability issues. It is a very stable and reliable product. It can run for several years without a single glitch.

It is highly scalable for its target market.

The technical support team is very co-operative and gives quick responses for the logged cases. A hundred percent of the logged cases have been resolved within the SLA period.

We looked at MikroTik. However, more features such as the performance, scalability, and consolidation were available on the Juniper device.

The initial setup was simple and can be done 100% via the GUI.

The price per performance value is the best out there in the market. No licensing is needed for all the features apart from the security part, i.e., no licensing for extra services and VPN comes free in the base.

We evaluated the FortiGate 80 and 60 series and Cisco ASA 5500.

The Juniper SRX300 is a stable and very reliable product, packed with a lot of capabilities that are not available in the competing products of the same range. I would highly recommend this product to anyone interested in implementing it.

This box has it all and is more for the small-scale branch market. Packaged as an all-in-one routing, switching, and security solution, the SRX300 minimizes the need to deploy separate devices to perform these functions by leveraging on its consolidation, all coming with the carrier-grade capabilities.

I work with firewalls. We have a team to manage them. We also have services that are related to hosting and we provide solutions related, and we set up everything.

We manage their connections remotely.

Every firewall has different use cases. Juniper is zone-based and the architecture matters. It offers convenience for the users to have remote access and ensures a secure and safe authentication.

When compared to Palo Alto, Juniper is a better choice when it comes to the enterprise network and connectivity.

Juniper SRX is pretty fast to configure and make it work.

Once it is configured, it's fine, which is not the case with other firewalls.

Juniper is user-friendly. It works perfectly well.

Upgrades are available.

Juniper SRX has a roll-back feature which is very interesting. As no one is perfect and mistakes do happen, we can roll it back to the previous configuration.

This solution can handle a lot. It's manageable when you know the parameters, the features, and the number of policies of your firewall.

The user interface is something that Juniper needs to improve. 

We have used many models of Juniper SRX. Based on the scale and the environment of the customer, we choose what is best for them.

Most of what we use are between the SRX300 and SRX345. These are the most commonly used series.

Simple, mid-scale establishments can use these models.

It is more or less stable. I prefer it for its stability as a firewall.

We are not a large team, we have 20 members in our company.

It's a scalable solution.

The support could be somewhat improved with Juniper.

We have also had firewalls from Palo Alto as well as FortiGate. I prefer Palo Alto, comparatively, it is better.

We find that the technical support with FortiGate is very slow. We are not able to get the proper help in spite of having the AMC add-on.

It is not at all complex. It's easy. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The maintenance requirements are based on the customer's agreement and whether it is to manage the firewall and maintain it.

It is best suited to an enterprise-level, as the mid-range companies may find that the cost is not affordable.

Previously, we had an implementation plan for a client. We verified the different types of firewalls and the support and how it works. We evaluated Cisco, Juniper, and FortiGate.

From the previous recommendation, we saw all of the technical aspects of the different firewalls. Based on that information, we were able to clarify and come to a conclusion and chose the firewall that was best suited to the client's needs.

Recently, because of the price, we have moved to Juniper.

Most of the AMCs are costly.

We choose our solution based on many reasons. One is the cost, which is the primary reason, and the second is the performance. Performance in this context includes how it loads, and how it handles. Based on these parameters, we choose the firewalls.

At this time, we are not using cloud-based features. It is something we anticipate in the future. We are not using Juniper cloud-based. When you have a setup at an architecture level, they will not have drastic changes until, or unless they are financially stable and they want a higher level of architecture to be implemented.

The change will not happen suddenly, even if you have an enterprise core application it won't be done in a different way. There will be a roadmap done. We also have the SSG firewalls.

There is a lot of work in the pipeline, it might take more time to change the firewalls that need upgrading.

When we use so many products, we have to follow the hierarchy. We don't commonly work in a UI environment.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It is good, and it is faster and easier to maintain. The price is not bad and when compared with Cisco, I find that Juniper is better. It's a good product for enterprise companies. 

We have a custom-built model that makes it very simple to migrate.

I would rate Juniper SRX an eight out of ten.

This product is our network firewall.

The Juniper SRX series is easy to use.

The interface could be more user-friendly.

I have been using Juniper SRX for a few years.

I have never needed to contact Juniper technical support.

I have not been involved in the installation of this device.

There is a licensing fee.

This is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.