Meraki MX Reviews

We are using Meraki MX for Wi-Fi.

The most valuable feature is that we didn't have any problems with Meraki MX.  

Management can be improved in Meraki MX. 

We have been using Meraki MX for eight years.

Stability and scalability are good. We didn't have any issues. 

Our experience with technical support was fine. We don't have any problems at all.

The initial setup was very quick and straightforward.

The pricing is fine at the moment.

I would recommend Meraki MX. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. It can have better management. 

I use Meraki in my POCs and with my customers as well.

From a subscription base or price perspective, there's some room for improvement.

They also need more security features. There are good security features now, but I need more of the security features to offer UTM protection.

I would rate this solution nine out of 10. As a solution, there is no need for improvement, it's a good solution.

Out of the features, I think the web filtering is most important here, and the SD-WAN solution.

Currently, if you make a rule in the firewall you have to add all of the IPs. If I'm working with an object for, say, an object group, where I put every single IP that I want into it, and then I apply it on a rule, it's a little bit easier to configure because you have a better overview of that. The overview is not completely clear. It's a bit difficult. But control of network objects is something I really want because it makes it easier to maintain.

Also, there's not enough control over system updates. Right now, you can postpone the update but eventually, if you don't do the update, it will install the updates automatically for you and that's something that is not working for me. It can happen during business hours, for example, and then you have a big issue.

In my opinion, it's a pretty stable solution. The solution is really running in a very stable manner.

It's pretty scalable. I have, worldwide, over a million users.

As of right now, I've never needed technical support. I've never had one issue with Meraki.

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched because it was an all-in-one solution. With Cisco, we couldn't configure the ASA-1, so we needed special equipment. It became an expensive solution. Meraki is also expensive, but it's a little bit less expensive and it's easier to configure than Cisco ASA.

The initial setup for me was straightforward and was not that difficult. The first time, it took a bit, but after that, I configured templates so it made it faster. I can roll out a firewall in five minutes.

I did the implementation myself. I oversee the maintenance as well.

As advice, I would say that you should look first through the community and see the different issues that people are running up against, so you're aware of what's going on. Meraki is very easy to configure. So if you want an easy to configure firewall, I think Meraki is a good solution for you.

I would rate this solution between an eight and nine out of ten. The product still needs work and the features could be better.

The security level of our organization has changed by using Meraki MX Firewalls. We didn't have the UTM before but now we have sandboxing, tray scanning, attack preventions, and monitorization. Our security level has improved. 

The most valuable feature is the cloud solution because it is configurable from anywhere. It is very user-friendly and not hard to learn. 

We feel that Cisco provides smaller features with fewer possibilities versus other solutions out there. 

The basic configuration takes 10-15 minutes which is great. 

Our users find the entire package quite expensive. The price of the application itself is not expensive but if you take a license, it costs more than the application itself. If you get it for five years, it is almost double the price of the application.

We looked at Sophos products and there is something to be said about their ability to build a price out of what your user wants. This is not an option with Meraki. 

It is a good fit for our business needs and our client needs. 

Meraki MX offers advanced filtration options, plus it behaves like a router and a firewall at the same time.

There is room for improvement relating to third-party VPNs.

You can only have one tunnel in the whole infrastructure — one tunnel with one device. I cannot have multiple terminals running from each of the devices to the same third-party.

I have been dealing with Meraki MX for nearly five years.

Meraki MX is both scalable and stable.

The technical support is quite good — very fast.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took roughly two hours, max.

If you are a small scale company looking for an SD-Wan solution, plus UTM box-type combination, then Meraki is the best option — based on the price and the features available.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MX a rating of nine.

• Users can manage and troubleshoot from anywhere.
• It's easy to set up, configure, and manage.
• It provides superior security.
• Interconnected management unlocks new possibilities.
• Lower TCO (total cost of ownership).

• Easy and simple to deploy for new branch
• Easy and simple to troubleshoot from anywhere
• We are better secured
• Good warranty

It can be improved in many areas, because it has many proprietary models for many different areas.

I have been using this solution since 2009.

Yes, I have encountered some issues in the past.

I usually contact technical support for advice. The technical support team is very good. We can send them an email or call them directly.

Some older solutions which we had before, we converted to this solution and used old technology that was difficult to control.

The initial setup was simple.

Before choosing Meraki MX Firewalls, I had some other options: Fortinet FortiGate and Cisco ASA.

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.

Within our company, there are a lot of remote access users. We also have a couple of offices and some international users as well.

In general, Meraki MX is easy to work with. 

I have been using Meraki MX for two years.

Meraki MX is both scalable and stable.

I really didn't experience any areas of complexity. The most complex part of the initial setup was setting up a conference camera. We host a lot of international board meetings that require video calling. 

The pricing could always be improved — especially with the shape the economy is in at the moment.

I don't have much advice to offer — everybody has to do their due diligence.

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