Meraki MX Reviews

We use it for the protection of our network and for access to our network Wi-Fi. 

We mainly use two products of Meraki. We use the MX Series router and Access Point MR. MX is a router, and its deployment is installed on-premises, but the management or administration is done on the cloud.

It protects our network and does content filtering. It monitors our network for threats, and it also monitors the performance of the network. We also use it for the VPN.

The visibility that it provides is very good. It is the most valuable feature of Meraki. It allows us to easily monitor threats, internal users, and internal and external networks. We rely a lot on this facility.

Its ability to provide visibility into threats is good. By using the dashboard, we can watch and be aware of any threats and also take action if needed. 

By using the VPN, we can connect remotely. We have two offices, and we could connect them through the VPN. We could establish a network between two sites, and that has improved and increased communication and productivity. Our remote site is able to access the server remotely.

Meraki has improved our security posture. Before Meraki, we didn't have any security. Now, we are protected by the firewall. It is our first perimeter protection. It has increased security, but we know that we need more security. The maturity of our organization's security implementation is low because we don't have many tools for security. Meraki is at the beginning of our security stack. We use the Meraki firewall, and that's all. We need more tools for security, but the problem is that tools are expensive. So, currently, we are protected by just the Meraki firewall and the antivirus for the endpoints.

The visibility through the cloud dashboard is most valuable. We can access the dashboard remotely anytime for configuration and monitoring. 

Its ease of configuration and management is very useful for us and for other companies that don't have an onsite IT person. It is easy to configure and easy to manage. It is easy to configure the VPN with the Auto VPN feature.

We use a Cisco LAN switch. Its model is CBS250, and it is a Cisco Small Business switch. It can be easily integrated, but the problem is that the other Cisco products are not in the same dashboard or cloud. Each one has a different management interface. I would prefer if both could be in the same cloud. If we use a switch from Meraki, it will be more expensive. Meraki switches are more expensive than the Cisco Small Business switches. For that reason, we prefer to use Cisco switches. With Cisco switches, we don't have to pay for subscriptions, whereas with a LAN switch from Meraki, we will have to pay for subscriptions.

We have been having a problem with the VPN. When the energy goes down and is back again, the VPN link doesn't get established. We have to manually turn off the modems and other pieces of equipment and manually establish the VPN. It has been around one month since we have been having this problem, and we don't have enough support from Meraki to solve the problem.

Their Technical Assistance Center (TAC) is slow to answer. Their response time should be improved. When we request support, their response time is long and not good. They still don't have the solution to the VPN problem. They established the VPN link, but the problem continues. They don't fix the problem. They just repair it, and the problem persists.

I have been using this solution for about five years.

It is currently not stable for us. Its stability is not good. Its configuration could be the reason for the instability. 

Meraki has a lot of different products, and it is scalable with Meraki products, but its scalability with another brand is not good.

We have two administrators who are currently using this solution.

Their Technical Assistance Center (TAC) is slow to answer. We called them two times. Their time of response was one hour and fifty minutes for one call, and it was one hour and seven minutes for the other call. Our experience was not good.

When we can get support, their attention is very good, but they haven't been able to find a resolution. The problem is still there.

It was straightforward. It is easy to configure. Meraki dashboard is intuitive. Of course, you need to know about networking, but it is intuitive and very fast to do the initial configuration. It took two hours.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we planned the network, the addresses, and the segmentation before starting the configuration. We planned the ports that should be opened and the ports that must be closed for security. We also planned the rules of the firewall.

We just configured Meraki through the dashboard. In switches, we configured the segmentation and the addresses. In Meraki, we configured the rules of content filtering. We then blocked the required things. The VPN configuration is supposed to be easy, but the problem is that if the VPN goes down when we are using it, it is too complex to bring it up.

Its implementation is very new, and it was done around one month or two months ago. At this time, no maintenance is necessary. If required, our administrators or a third party can take care of maintenance. Once configured, there is no need to change anything. Its usability is very good, and it is not common to make any changes or do any maintenance. It just works.

We used a third party to help with its deployment. Our experience with them was medium. 

We just have to pay for the product and the license. We have a license for three years, and it is renewed every three years. It costs $1,200 for three years for one endpoint. 

Meraki had a good promotion for remote workers or remote workforce. The discount is very good. This promotion continues till the next fiscal year of Cisco.

We evaluated FortiGate. FortiGate is a very good firewall. It is better than Meraki, but it is more complex to configure and manage. In terms of security, FortiGate is better to integrate. We chose Meraki because of its ease of management.

FortiGate has good visibility and control through its own local interface. If you need to access the cloud, you need to go for another subscription.

FortiGate has good monitoring, visibility, and control, but Meraki is easier. Meraki has fewer security functions than FortiGate. You can monitor more in FortiGate.

The problem with FortiGate is that you need to buy FortiManager to have more visibility, which is a separate license. You can gain visibility of threats inside of the local interface of FortiGate by using FortiManager. 

It is a very good platform for small businesses. It is easy to configure and manage, and it has Talos. It is easy to integrate with other Meraki products. Its contact filtering is also good, and the VPN is very easy to configure with the Auto VPN feature.

It provides good security, but it is not the best. It is for small businesses, and it doesn't have the same functionality as Firepower or other brands, such as Fortinet. It doesn't have the same security as Firepower or FortiGate. I would recommend complementing the security provided by Meraki MX with an endpoint security solution. If you need more security, you can add sandbox security.

I would rate Meraki MX an eight out of 10.

It is a complete network security solution, including switches, routers, and everything else. It's a cloud-managed solution from Cisco. 

If a customer wants to deploy a remote office and have things managed remotely, and if they want to have control and provide an SD-WAN kind of experience for the customer with multiple WAN provider links to optimize, then the customer will go for a Cisco Meraki kind of solution.

In terms of WAN optimization, it's completely cloud-controlled. Anyone, even an IT hitch, can manage their network environment from a mobile phone. That is how easy it is. And users will get an immediate alert if something goes wrong.

There are strong and weak areas for each and every provider. 

So, when it comes to cost, that's what the pain is. There are other providers, like Fortinet and all those people. They can provide a more cost-effective solution when compared to Cisco.

So cost is something they should work on, like, to reduce the price.

I have been using it for ten years. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We also deal with other Cisco products. So, I specifically work with the enterprise-level businesses. 

We provide support for this product. 

Meraki is very easy. It's very easy to manage the setup and all that stuff. I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, with ten being easy.

Cloud Deployment:

It is a solution where this can be managed through the cloud, Cisco's cloud. Meraki is the solution. You can manage it in Cisco's cloud. Generally, if you look into any router or that kind of thing, you need to put in the local IP, plug in, and do the configuration. 

Whereas in Cisco, you'll have a user ID and password. All your equipment will be listed in the Cisco Meraki cloud itself, where you can configure everything centrally and deploy it.

Deployment time:

The deployment took a few hours. Management is easy. It's centrally managed through the cloud. I don't see a challenge.

Everything is fine. But when it comes to the initial CapEx cost, it's really high.

I would rate the pricing a ten out of ten, with one being cheap and ten being expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. However, my recommendation depends on the use case. 

It is a robust SD-WAN solution. It has multiple valuable features, including cellular gateways and cellular failover.

The configuration options for firewall and IPS have limitations. We do not have access to CLI, similar to other Cisco products. This particular area needs improvement.

We have been using Meraki MX for ten to twelve years.

It is a stable platform.

The platform is suitable for small to enterprise businesses.

We have had some experience working with Meraki MX's technical support team. Their response depends on the engineer's location. The support is good in some areas. For a few places, the Level 1 engineers don't have enough knowledge to deal with issues, and we have to get Level 2 or Level 3 support.

Neutral

The initial setup requires basic technical knowledge. It is easy to install. You can use the Zero Touch deployment method if your organization is spread across multiple locations worldwide.

The product's price depends on use cases. The equipment is overall reasonable. Although, enterprise licensing is expensive.

In comparison with FortiGate, Meraki MX is very competitive with SD features. It is easy to use and set up. It has a simple configuration process, making it a robust product point. However, in terms of interface, FortiGate and Palo Alto can display more complicated information, is simple to use, and has more configuration abilities.

Meraki MX needs improvement in a few areas, including the dashboard, configuration options, firewalls, and technical licensing model. I advise others to go for it if they have more technical expertise for an easy setup process. 

I rate Meraki MX a seven out of ten.

The solution is mainly based on the cloud which is highly adaptable to the needs of its users due to its large user base. By employing over fifty VPS, we strategically position these units where clients require them the most. Remarkably, the cost of this setup is notably more affordable compared to competing alternatives. The management dashboard allows users to oversee each branch within their network. This comprehensive view is unified within the dashboard, offering insights into the entire branch network. The system works mostly for financial institutions, particularly banking clients.

The cloud management system is really valuable.           

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.

I have been using Meraki MX for the last three years.

The solution is stable however there are issues and we need to reboot sometimes. I would rate it five out of ten. 

Considering the needs of medium-class clients, scalability proves to be highly advantageous. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The initial setup is easy via the cloud portal, primarily because managed support is needed for internet access. Without this, the direct configuration of the box becomes unattainable.The duration required is significantly shorter compared to alternatives. Occasionally, when dealing with a larger number of branches, like fifty or more, we managed to complete the implementation within 14 days. In cases involving complex processes and discussions, additional time might be necessary. However, once the system is set up and connected to the cloud, other configurations can be done within an eight-hour timeframe.

This solution is viable for medium-sized enterprises and even larger ones, presenting an affordable option. The scalability aspect should be factored in, considering the specific branch alterations. For branch placements, Meraki offers a suitable scalability model, adaptable based on the branch size and user count. We own a range of appropriately sized Meraki boxes to address varying branch needs. When attending to any issues, especially during branch implementations, on-site visits might be necessary. However, in the absence of cloud management, Meraki can be easily managed centrally and remotely. This approach facilitates efficient updates, configuration management, and comprehensive visibility, all streamlined within a single dashboard. 

I would rate overall solution a seven out of ten. 

I used the MX80 as primary FW in a small Office with 50 users. The options provide even non-FW-specialist a way to manage and block certain aspects of internet usage.

The main purpose of the Meraki is to use Internet for Users. Not filter traffic for Servers. 

Together with other network gear you get an overall visibility into each client on the network. Thats is fantastic. Meraki offers free trails and you can get the entry level gear very cheap. The support model allows usage of the cloud management only if you have support. But then you get all features and updates.

We now use the small MX as a VPN tunnel in the small offices. The SDWAN feature is great as it connects to any point if one is not available. Setup is easy as bam. Check it out.

Everyone is able to look at the cloud management to find out problems and identify the source. You don't need a FW specialist any more. You can even outsource the maintenance and support via a support account and delegate access in networks, locations or even only one device.

The solution was cloud managed, so I could access it from anywhere and deploy it with zero configuration. No need to configure anything. Just send it to the location and connect with the internet. 

The event logging, alerting, and reporting features could use improvement. Especially the export of the log is difficult. There is an API to connect to, but I have not found it easy to extract something yet.

I have used this solution for 4 years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability. Once a device was just dead and dead replacement. Once we had to replace a device because of predicted failure. Both cases were handled well by the support. We had only next business day support.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability. High bandwidth will cost something. You might be better off using multiple streams with multiple providers.

I would rate technical support 10/10.

I previously used Cisco and I switched because of missing manageability.

I now use a central Sophos FW and this can be managed through the central AV and Protection Cloud Management if you use Sophos as AV client.

The initial setup was easy. Some features need more investigation (client VPN). SDWAN is great. Some more training on how to set something up would help like VLAN. Even if it is that easy to configure it, the basic concepts might be missing.

Other provider did not jump on Meraki as I would expect. Most of them do not support nor use Meraki. It is difficult to find support provider to help if there is a problem.

With many locations you will save a lot on traveling and deployment, as you don't need this any more. The costs inc. support is comparable with other vendors.

Compare total costs (setup and management), taking in mind that cloud features do more than just stop traffic on the edge: they identify both traffic and users.

Is it getting used to have support as a must. But realistically I would not use any other FW without support today.

We used Cisco products, we tested several other vendors too. Sophos is a close match in manageability and offer real FW features, but is more complex and needs more training.

Meraki is still best for an office FW. Simple categories, features, SDWAN. I would not use it for Web Server protection or Server to Server firewall so.

Be prepared for a new way of managing networks. Test it. See the webcast. The zero deployment is a killer feature. Network Products like switches and Wifi do the rest.

Meraki MX Firewalls solutions are very customized for our groups. We are a worldwide group. We are currently implementing an IT solution worldwide. 

We have to replace old firewalls in the next couple of years in many countries. We are working on this project. We used Meraki MX 55005 firewalls previously. 

In between, we used many different firewalls from other companies. We won't be doing the acquisition of many new parts by these companies now.

We have tested different brands of firewalls. We have to consolidate to handle a better solution. We chose Meraki because we are already familiar with the products. 

Meraki MX firewalls are one point, but also have good availability. We have many people from different countries in which we have Cisco contracts to serve.

It's not only a technical aspect but also a commercial reason for our choice of Meraki.

We are currently replacing all other old firewalls with new Meraki systems in the next two years. We do this first for new sites and for sites that need to change. 

We do not change everything in one step also because of budget and also because of deployment requirements. This is a worldwide deployment. It will take time.

One of the things I found very important for us is for our sites to have a new device. Another was to be able to have two solutions with the ease of firewalls to control everything.

We use Meraki MX firewalls remote for small to bigger sites. One also was to have integration with have physical DC. We work also with domain control (DC) from Microsoft or Amazon. We use a whole virtual appliance with Meraki.

One aspect of the problem is that we need to have the ability to do connections that are fully integrated, i.e. between one solution at home and at the data center. The short box epicenter is from Microsoft Azure in the future.

We are currently having a problem with Meraki in the end product. They have two kinds of enterprise licenses and an advanced security license. 

The problem is that the two licenses do not currently integrate. We have to create separate companies and do an interconnection between these licenses. 

Even to do a full free trial run, we need the same kind of licenses. This is something we seek to change because it's not fair. With this license mode, we should be able to choose which sites we use and which sites we do not need.

We often see a break in the connection between both modem and dish. We found that if we communicate with Cisco, we can find the right solution to solve this.

Currently, we have found all the things we need for our company already. Only perhaps compatibility for mobile lines is still required. 

Meraki MX is the program for us. We should have enterprise licenses.

The stability of Meraki is that we have to fight working readiness. Meraki MX firewalls are perfect. We have no problems. We do agreements for a system. 

We do the changing of old IT systems. It's working very well.

The scalability is very good. We use it for plans that are electrified and on bigger plans for our domain. We have all of our plans and software licenses that match. We have deployed with this company responsibly. 

Currently, we are 400 people. We may need two more devices for 800 users. We decided to go bigger because of our proposed acquisition of many companies in the next couple of years.

Technical support is very good and quick. We have had some incidents and best response on a couple of various issues. They are very efficient.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 7. For us, the license is a big issue and we need to get better facilities, i.e. the original problem.

From any country, it's not easy to manage a product remotely across the world. We are supporting little companies and compatibilities for three countries with different languages. 

It's not easy to deal with because the provider we use doesn't deliver to our country, even Israel. It's a problem we encounter more than the physical system. It's complicated.

The one question we get about the system in Switzerland is that when we send it to the target countries, it's not good.

We need a solution that merges both to be able to access the system and theoretically to target businesses. We don't have this possibility

In our company, about a hundred employees are using Meraki MX solution.

The solution is very easy to use. It's easier than, for example, FortiGate. 

I would say that it could possibly use some deeper configurations, but I am not entirely sure. I'm still comparing it with others.

I have been using Meraki MX for several years now

My rating of the stability of Meraki MX would be a nine out of ten. 

When it comes to the scalability, would give it a seven out of ten. I didn't initially buy it or install it myself, but but we are using still it to this day.

At our company, we have been using both FortiGate and Meraki MX for some time now. We are still comparing them and deciding on which one we should stick with in the future