Meraki MX Reviews

The primary reason we implemented this product is as a gateway router. That is the first functionality that we sought out for. It also has all of these built-in intrusion detection and malware protection firewall features. So, we are also using it for the firewall capability that is built into it.

The whole selling point for this product is that it's cloud-managed.

They have very good technical support and I have relied heavily on them.

The ports can be VLAN separated, so we use that feature, or we used it in the past.

It would be nice if the different services, including the SIEM SOC and endpoint detection and response (EDR) were integrated into one, so that I don't have to go to different vendors for different services. Ideally, I would like to have one place to shop.

This is a stable product.

They have very good technical support.

We also have a Barracuda.

I worked with the previous, older router than was in the company and it was command-line driven. That was terrible, so I find that the Cisco Merki is a great improvement. Overall, I'm really happy with it, although I cannot compare it to any others.

My understanding is that all of the products have evolved from a command-line interface to being web-based and cloud-managed.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

I deployed this product, although I relied a lot on Cisco support when I set it up.

This is a nice device, although I find that when you speak with professionals about it, they put down these combined devices that have many different functionalities. They say that it is not like a bonafide firewall, the same way that they say the Barracuda IPS is not as good as a dedicated one. I wouldn't be able to tell you whether it's good or it's better unless something really bad happens. I don't know, for example, whether it works great or it's that we haven't been attacked yet.

We have a SIEM SOC managed service and as part of it, they rely on the logs that the Meraki generates, so it can't be that bad of a product.

Overall, this is a very nice product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The application visibility, performance visibility, and the failover capability for VPN are excellent.

The security is not as strong as it could be. The lack of HTTPS encryption is a big challenge that I have with Meraki. Essentially, the Meraki device is blind to any threats that are encrypted, and currently, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 to 80% of all internet traffic is encrypted. In other words, you basically have a blind security guard watching the network.

I have been using Meraki MX for over five years.

We've had no issues with the scalability or the stability of this solution.

The price varies depending on the hardware platform as well as the type of license and whether you're adding security or not. 

If you're going to go with Meraki as your primary gateway, I'd recommend having a secondary security solution in your back pocket.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven.

We made a big change recently in the company. The company didn't have a firewall. We suggested putting Meraki products in the company.

One improvement from Meraki is security. It improves security in our network. We don't have any problems with receiving intrusion alerts now.

When you try to create an IP or when you have an alert about when a website is banned, these features are helpful. 

What I would like to see in the next version is to have more interfaces for WAN links. 

For example, if we have three providers, we can't connect to Meraki because it has only two WAN ports.

I would like to have on Meraki more WAN ports, i.e. one data internet port for two lines.

The stability of this solution is very good. You can handle everything. The Meraki MX Firewall is very easy for us to use.

The scalability of Meraki is fine. It's for me for IT, and then another person also uses it. We are two people. If something happens that we don't know how to handle, we ask for the help of the company's tech support team.

Dataways is the integrator that we bought it from to increase scalability. The limit is 48 users with shares of the Meraki for 48 ports.

In the future, we are going to increase security and put in another Meraki.

Technical support is good. It's a firewall company for medium-to-small companies. It's a little bit expensive. In order to work with Meraki support, you have to buy permission.

Buying a contract for support is three years plus some money. Usually, one or two people is enough to monitor it.

We didn't have a firewall at all previously.

The initial setup of the Meraki firewall was straightforward. Deployment took a few days. 

We bought Meraki from a Greek company called Dataways. They made an initial configuration of the Meraki device.

We were evaluating between FortiGate firewalls and Meraki. Finally, we chose Meraki. But FortiGate is a very good option.

I recommend anyone look towards the possibilities of firewalls of this caliber with Meraki. 

Research the top firewalls to compare, depending on how many users and the purpose of the need. It is great to have a firewall like Meraki or FortiGate.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Meraki an eight or nine.

Using it as an endpoint firewall on different locations. We used different MX devices to setup a VPN from off-site locations to our main office. It is a firewall for dummies. Almost sets itself up.

Minimal fuss. Stable and fast enough. Easy to administer and saves time when you have many smaller locations that you have to manage.

Auto-setup VPN between locations and the simple "cloud-panel" to administer all devices with an elegant overview, all from one place.

It can always improve pricewise regarding throughput.

No.

No.

Have not contacted customer service/technical support yet.

Smaller devices: SonicWall, ZyXel, etc.

We switched to get the Auto VPN function and the brilliant administrator panel, where all devices are accessible from one place.

Initial setup was straightforward and extremely easy.

No need for a vendor team to implement. Used in-house expertise.

Not measured.

You get what you pay for.

With this device, "anybody" can set it up.  Should keep IT man hours to a minimum.

Did not really evaluate other solutions as this was a side project to our "main" firewalls. At the time, we did some research on the Internet and did not really find anything comparable to Meraki.

The solution is simple, fast to set up, and brilliant for its use.

The primary use case is a zero-touch deployment.

It has very good features; it's easy to use, configure, set up, and deploy.

Also, the support is very good.

While it's reasonably priced, it could always be lowered to compete with others.

In the next release, because the security is pretty basic, I think they could include additional security features.

We used this solution for a very small project.

Meraki MX is quite stable. We have not had any issues.

It's a scalable solution.

Cisco's technical support is good, they are very responsive.

It's easy to set up and configure.

It was a very small project and it only took four or five minutes to install.

Four or five switches can be deployed in a day.

We have a team of several engineers to deploy and maintain this solution.

The price is slightly increased, but reasonable.

It's a good solution. If they're looking for something that is easy to use, easy to deploy, and easy to support, maybe they should consider Meraki, given the product is very stable.

The features are good. 

The price point is one thing that we need to consider, but it's expected because good products come with slightly increased pricing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Meraki MX firewalls with Cisco. Some features must go through Cisco to implement. What the application needs is not included in Meraki. 

I use Cisco to access a portal and they provide the features. Then we implement it in Meraki.

It's the vision of the company through the managing directors to use Meraki as a solution for switches. I suggested using the firewall or a private solution like FortiGate.

FortiGate is cheaper than Meraki. Even the license renewal is less than Meraki.

The features we have found most valuable are the firewall and the monitoring tools.

This product has room for improvement. The main features not included with the firewall is the virtual domain. With Meraki, the interface for the virtual domain could be improved.

The virtual domain is a concurrent session. The concurrent session is limited in Meraki, like FortiGate. In MX100, it's around 200 to 25,000 concurrent sessions.

In the same model with FortiGate, it's around five million concurrent sessions. It's very important to improve in Meraki.

In my view, it is very important that the number of concurrent sessions is increased.

It's stable, but there are also some features not included in Meraki.

I'm using it. It's very good. One person is required for the administration only.

The solution's technical support is good. I would rate it 8/10.

I was using Cisco and FortiGate.

The initial setup is simple. Our deployment took around 30 minutes.

I did the setup by myself. Sometimes I referred back to the integrator for support if I need to for a specific tool or policy.

Our license for the Meraki MX firewall is on an annual basis.

I am not switching to Meraki. I am combining. I'm combining to be consistent with FortiGate as it has a more powerful graph. If I do not renew the license in Meraki, the box sets would be stopped. 

In FortiGate, I can have up to one month or two months to renew. The box is working locally. It's not important to the internet service to get registered. But the box is fully licensed.

I was with Cisco but it's very expensive.

For this solution, Meraki is still more expensive than FortiGate. The FortiGate license is still less than the Meraki license. 

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate Meraki MX firewalls a 7. If they were to add the configuration tools, then it would be much higher.

Our company and clients use this solution. Our clients range in size from small, medium, and large organizations. Within our company, there are roughly 50 people using this solution. 

I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard.

Currently, I don't see any big areas for improvement; although, It lacks some switching features. For instance, when you use MX to link the firewall to a stack, you cannot use LACP.  You cannot use switching behaviors as you see on the Meraki switch. This would be a really cool feature to have — real switching features on Meraki MX.

I have been using Meraki MX for five years.

Meraki MX is very stable. We haven't experienced any issues relating to stability. It's also very scalable, too.

We are in the first line of support, so we use the support differently than traditional customers — they are good.

Yes. We used Cisco, Palo Alto, a bit of Fortinet, and others. Currently, we only provide Meraki and Meraki-related devices.

The price could be lower, but compared to the TCO of other products, it's not really that expensive. When we sell it to customers, the first fee of the quote is often a bit odd; however, consider the small number of resources needed to manage it, there is an advantage to using Meraki MX.

You need to be ready to change your mindset of classical firewalls. Meraki is really more powerful with the full stack, which is the real purpose of this solution.

The real advantage with Meraki is the interaction between different prototypes, like Xpoint which is Amex — this is a game-changer. It's great when you have the full stack and you can play with the different settings and interact between Meraki devices.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MX a rating of eight.