Juniper vSRX Reviews

It's where we face some of our IPsec tunnels.

It's basic functionality is probably the most valuable feature.

Juniper has some really good ideas, but I think they have missed the boat with regard to execution.

The GUI really needs a lot of work, and it has got worse with successive version updates. There are some things that are just easier to look at in the GUI, and they've removed some features that were very helpful.

Even though the features are still available in the CLI, sometimes it's just easier to look at the rules in a hierarchical fashion in the GUI.

The hardware needs some serious work as well. In the four years we've had Juniper vSRX, we've had four RMAs. Each of the three physical devices that we have has been replaced at least once.

A better methodology of looking at how a proposed rule would act on the network would be good to have. For example, Cisco ASA had a tool where you could write a rule or a policy, and it would tell you whether it stopped specific traffic.

I've used it for the last four years.

My impressions of this solution's stability is not very favorable. We haven't had any problems with actual stability in the last couple of years, but it has lost its mind a couple of times and required rebooting.

The technical support for this solution is fair. I've had a lot worse, and I've had better, so it's run of the mill.

We were using Cisco ASA before Juniper vSRX.

The reason that we didn't go with Cisco is that their products were behind the times. Other products had more up-to-date technology.

We're a small organization, and the initial setup was pretty straightforward. I do the maintenance of the solution.

We hired an outside vendor to help with initial deployment.

On a qualitative level, Juniper vSRX is taking care of what we need it to. So far, we haven't had an attack, but we did have a breach.

The ongoing licensing cost seems to be pretty standard. There are no additional costs.

I recommend looking elsewhere. I'm not particularly enamored with Juniper vSRX. I've had a lot of problems with it. We're looking to replace Juniper with either Aruba or FortiGate based on usability and affordability.

Overall, I would rate this solution at four on a scale from one to ten.

The product’s quality and performance are better than other vendors.

The solution could improve its technical support. It could also improve its performance and ticket handling.

I am working on the solution currently for three of my clients.

Most of the clients might choose Cisco, Palo Alto, and Fortinet over Juniper because of the difference in pricing, quality, performance, ticket handling, and technical support.

The product has a good market in our country. Juniper’s MX1000 and other series have firewall and routing features. However, in other products, the firewall and routing feature is separated. Most Juniper devices combine routing switches and firewalls on a single platform.

Overall, I rate the solution a six or seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is for firewall and network security

It does everything that we need it to do.

• Easy to maintain.
• Easy to use.
• Easy to set up.

It is easy for me to go in and update settings, make changes, or add/remove rules or security. 

Also, it works. That is the biggest thing.

The user interface could always be better. They could make it simpler and more intuitive. While it is pretty good now, they could always make improvements.

We don't put that much stress on it, but it is very stable. I don't think we have ever had an issue with it crashing or going down.

Our college is small, so we have a smaller environment. However, it appears like it would scale easily. There are other larger colleges who use Juniper using the same system and setup that we do with thousands of faculty and staff instead of the hundreds that we have.

I have not contacted technical support.

It is not that costly.

We also evaluated Cisco, but we had a good experience with Juniper in the past. Our rep with them would come out and talk to us about things routinely. Thus, we already had a good relationship with them.

It works for us and has worked for other colleges and universities.

We use just the on-premise version of the product. We are not on AWS yet. I'm looking forward to integrating this solution into AWS soon.

One of Juniper vSRX's most valuable features is its integration with safety applications. It keeps the software secure from developers without relying on third-party solutions.

The biggest downside of Juniper vSRX is its pricing, which may be too high for smaller organizations. While it's a decent solution, the cost may limit its accessibility to smaller customers.

I have been working with the product for five to six years. 

The solution's stability is good. It responds very quickly in crisis situations, which might be partly because I know the team there and how to get the information I need.

The tool's scalability is good. 

I've seen really fast response times with Juniper vSRX. When there's a problem, it modifies the firmware quickly to respond to the threat. With Cisco, it can take months to make changes because their architecture is more complicated. Juniper vSRX and Fortinet are straightforward. 

Positive

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

The command feature is valuable. The product provides restore and backup features, too.

The GUI is complex. The security feature must be improved.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. We have 1500 users.

The initial setup was easy. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. It took us six months to deploy the product.

The solution is pricey. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

I prefer Fortinet over Juniper vSRX. Fortinet provides more features.

I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We use the solution as a site-to-site VPN gateway.

The solution's most valuable feature is the logical terminal interface. It helps us with monitoring VPNs. We get alerts and other notifications when in case of system downtime using it.

The solution's GUI needs improvement. Whenever we do some modifications, the systems get restarted. Thus, I have to use the command line interface.

I have been using Juniper vSRX version 13 as a customer for the last five years.

The solution is stable.

We have more than 20 to 30 site-to-site VPNs established using the solution.

Compared with the solution, Cisco ASA needs proper SNMP and MIB monitoring in case of IPSec VPN tunnel downtime.

The solution's initial setup process is easy.

The solution is inexpensive.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it an eight out of ten. It is a very inexpensive box and has good features as well.

Mine control is not an easy area to control in Juniper. There are also too many steps for configuration, like the IP address policy. There are too many types of licenses, which can be confusing. Simple licenses should be built in.

Processing is too slow between Juniper and Cisco. Palo Alto is faster. The database is not as complete as Cisco or Palo Alto.

I've been using this solution for around 11 years.

I also use Cisco and Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution 6 out of 10.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall for security purposes in order to keep our organization safe.

In general, the entire security solution is great, from end to end.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

The solution works quite well. I can't think of any features that are lacking. I don't know where it could be improved.

Some people complain that the solution tends to have a steep learning curve. It could be because most people have basic familiarity with Cisco or other similar products and maybe have never worked closely with Juniper products. I don't find that it's a problem, however, I have heard this mentioned as an issue for some people.

We've been using the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches and doesn't seem to crash at all. Its performance is great. You can rely on it.

The solution can scale if you need it to. That's not a problem.

We do have plans to increase the usage of the product in the future.

We have technical experts who have helped us in the past. They were quite supportive. They were both responsive and knowledgable and we've been satisfied with eh level of service provided.

Before we started using Juniper, we used Huawei Firewall and its related services. We switched as we found that Juniper offered a much better service. From our perspective, everything about Juniper is better. Huawei is lacking in a few areas.

The solution isn't too complex to set up. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment, from beginning to end, takes about six months.

We had about 20 experts on the deployment project.

We used a solution provider to assist us with the implementation.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Juniper.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

We'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution an eight.