SonicWall NSa Reviews

The solution is deployed on-premises. We're using the latest version. 

There are around 3,000 users of this solution in my company.

I like this solution because we are focused on VPN and have many brands that need to link a VPN and have security, like ransomware, spyware, and basic protection.

The cost could be lower. There could also be more flexibility for smaller companies. The cost to maintain SonicWall is quite high.

After updating the firmware, sometimes the solution stops working. I had to do a factory reset and reconfiguration to solve the problem. 

I have used this solution for about two years.

The solution is stable. I would rate the stability as seven out of ten. 

Technical support isn't bad, but it isn't the best. Sometimes, we don't receive the answers we're looking for, so we have to look it up on the internet. 

I would rate technical support as three out of five.

Setup isn't difficult, but it's not easy either. It depends on the experience of the person who is implementing the solution.

We use four people for maintenance. There's also a support team of three people.

SonicWall's technical support helped us with implementation.

We paid about 10,000 in our currency for one packet of SonicWall NSa.

I would rate this solution as seven out of ten.

We have installed this firewall appliance across cloud and on-premises environments, our clients primarily use the VPN functionality.

If a customer wants to use the firewall, they have to pay more money for the cloud. By having a firewall solution, they can configure the VPN through the firewall, enabling them to avoid the high costs. Once you deploy the firewall in the cloud solution, then you will get protection for the gateway as well.

We are a service-based company and have implemented over 200 appliances for our customers.

The VPN functionality and intrusion prevention service (IPS) are the most valuable features.

I am a technical engineer, I have complete knowledge of SonicWall. I can do all of the configurations for the firewall. We are a service-based company and I handle the different solutions. If they need any requirement or they any action on the firewall then I can do that myself. 

The only thing that needs improvement is the VPN because we need to pay to connect the points.

I have been using SonicWall for 5 years.

We have found the NSa appliance to be stable and is comparable to FortiGate.

We have expanded the solution with several of our customers and this worked great. We have over 200 customers who use SonicWall.

Level 1 and 2 support issues are handled by our in-house team, but for more complex, level 3 issues we utilise the vendor. The call response is great.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We are a service-based provider and implement in-house.

We also implement similar appliances from Fortinet and Sophos.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. It's a good security product, so I wouldn’t give it a lower rating.

We primarily use the solution from our firewall endpoint VPN. It does have a spam filter, SSL, DPI, and numerous other security features. We've got the full license suite.

The DPI-SSL is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's handy. It's nice.

The scalability is okay.

The initial implementation isn't too bad, once you get used to the process.

We're not happy with the device itself. We're obviously moving away from it for a reason that they're a Swiss pocket-knife of devices and they do a lot. However, nothing is really done well. They don't specialize in one thing that they excel at. They try instead to do almost everything and end up failing.

We're not particularly fond of the way it generally performs. We are finding ourselves rebooting often. There are freeze-ups and that kind of thing. The stability needs to improve exponentially.

Technical support is pretty slow to respond and escalate matters.

The cost of the solution is quite high.

The solution could use an invisible DPI-SSL or something that doesn't require a certificate rewrite. Most of the other vendors are doing that now. 

The SSL VPN performance-wise is terrible.

We've been using the solution for about three years at this point.

The stability isn't the best. It freezes. We have to reboot a lot. The device just doesn't work very well.

The scalability is okay, It's marginal, however, it is possible.

We have about 300 people on-premises that use the solution.

We've been in touch with technical support, ad currently, we find them to be below average in their support capabilities. Firewall support is just adequate. Right now, with COVID and everything, you are looking at 45 minutes to an hour to get the first technician on the phone. Often it takes two or three days to get it escalated. It's slow.

I personally previously used Cisco devices at another company, and therefore I have some experience with them. 

We're currently migrating away from this solution at the moment. We do not like the way the device performs.

In terms of deployment, there is a bit of a learning curve right off the top, as I come from a Cisco ASA background. It's more object-based, a little bit different. Once you get the knack of it, it's actually pretty nice in some ways.

That said, operationally, I would recommend anybody that deploys one of these to make sure they develop their own SOP for naming conventions, for objects, object groups, object types, service groups, service objects, et cetera, so that it's easier to manage and understand what you're doing. Generally speaking, it's just a best practices kind of process for administrative work. If you've got multiple admins, it's important that everything is contiguous, meaning everybody understands and works under that same parameters. It's like any other operating environment.

In terms of maintenance, there are two of us that generally manage it and maintain it on a fairly regular basis. I'm a network engineer and the department manager, who's not a system engineer, (however, is well-versed), also can perform maintenance as needed.

We handled the implementation in-house. We did not need an integrator or consultant to assist us.

While I don't know the exact amount off the top of my head, I would estimate the licensing package was about $15,000 to $20,000 a year.

Your original purchase includes the purchase of the hardware, licensing, and support. It's not a cheap device. 

We are customers and end-users.

We are currently using the NSA 4600. It's a full security appliance. We're using the latest version of the solution.

It's our primary firewall/VPN endpoint. It's used 24/7, 365. Due to the nature of our work, uptime is critical.

Ultimately, if you were to ask me if I were to recommend this device, I would say no.

I'd rate the solution at a three out of ten, simple due to the fact that the stability isn't there, and it's an expensive solution.

I use SonicWall NSA primarily for data center and perimeter security.

When I switched from Fortinet to SonicWall, the number of network attacks significantly decreased. This change greatly helped in maintaining a secure network environment.

I find the simple licensing, a good GUI, and cost-effective throughput of SonicWall NSA to be excellent features. Also, real-time deep memory inspection is very helpful and has had a positive impact on our security posture.

I would like more free VPN licenses. It would be beneficial if they could enhance the analytics part. It needs to be more monolithic, and more details in the analytical tools offered would be appreciated since it is not yet mature. Integration with AI tools could also be an improvement.

I have been working with SonicWall NSA for four years.

The stability of SonicWall NSA is quite good. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

SonicWall NSA is quite scalable. I would rate its scalability around eight out of ten, meaning there are no issues, and it is pretty easy to scale.

I have had little need for technical support. When I did contact them, the support from SonicWall was excellent. I would rate them ten out of ten.

Positive

I previously used Fortinet and switched due to their unsatisfactory post-sale support and the high renewal costs. There were also concerns about data security, as Fortinet is a Chinese-based company, and we experienced network attacks while using Fortinet.

The initial setup of SonicWall NSA was very simple.

We initially used third-party consultants for the setup yet found it simple to use afterward.

SonicWall is much cheaper compared to Fortinet, particularly regarding renewal and licensing costs.

I recommend SonicWall for its good support, scalability, and cost-effectiveness. It is suitable for various sizes of enterprises.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

NSa is mostly provided to customers who want to secure their perimeter. It is positioned for users above 100.

We are SonicWall partners. We propose NSa to our customers and do integrations with the firewall.

The ease of configuration is excellent. NSA has logging, alarm features, and a very useful knowledge base available on the SonicWall community site.

Certain features like SD-WAN are sometimes confusing to configure. One important feature that should be provided by default is SSL VPN, without needing a separate license.

I have used SonicWall for the past ten years.

The stability is very good. Wherever I've deployed it, there has been a zero RMA.

For scalability, I would rate it nine out of ten.

Technical support was good. The response time and quality were satisfactory.

Positive

The initial setup is simple.

Pricing is reasonable. I would rate it seven out of ten.

We did evaluate Fortinet. Both SonicWall and Fortinet are on par with each other. The choice depends on the customer's existing setup and usage of SD-WAN.

I would recommend the product to other users. I'd rate it nine out of ten overall. 

SonicWall has USCS and anti-virus at the gateway level. Everything is filtered, and if it detects an intruder, it drops the line.

We have security as a service, and they make recommendations about adding to the denylist and other things. That part could be more accessible and more user-friendly. I'd like to see SonicWall add a user-friendly interface where our internal team can drag and drop everything. We get the IOCs from the security companies, so these things can be filtered and blocked at the gateway level. They could add a feature where our team uploads the IOCs in an Excel spreadsheet instead of entering them in one at a time. 

We've been using SonicWall for almost seven years.

Yeah, it is much stable and we have been using NSa the previous version before also, the old device. It's all so far okay. It's stable only.

We could expand by another 20 percent, and the product would still cover us. It shouldn't be a problem. We haven't faced many challenges. It's a gateway-level firewall product, and we have 140 users.

SonicWall support is good.

We used Cisco a long time ago, but we moved to SonicWall almost eight years ago.

Setting up SonicWall isn't that complicated, but you need to know the scope — what's allowed and what isn't. But it's not as complex as Cisco. The deployment takes a couple of days, but we could probably do it faster. We upgraded from the older version of SonicWall NSa to the latest appliance in less time. 

It doesn't require a large team for maintenance. If we can manage it, anyone can. We only have three people on our team, and we can manage it without issue. 

We used the local redistributor here in Bahrain. They were knowledgeable and had SonicWall experience, so they didn't face much of a challenge. It was straightforward. The only difference is that we went with high availability — two devices. 

We have a yearly license. SonicWall's price is better than other vendors. We get a discount of about 15 percent off the initial cost.

I rate SonicWall eight out of 10. I recommend it. If you implement SonicWall, it'll be a smooth journey.

Our primary use case for SonicWall NSa is a firewall and for analytics. I use SonicWall NSa to follow the users. Some users manage to bypass the firewall sometimes and install certain software. I track all of this "bad" behavior and block it.

SonicWall NS has a lot of valuable features. One of the best SonicWall NSa features is the ability to collect mini routers and get only one user connection.

Overall, I'm satisfied with SonicWall NSa, but it would be better if they could add a small terminal to each device. This would help me deal with certain issues by running a small bot onto any PC. This terminal could control technical configuration from a centralized configuration with the SonicWall appliance. 

I have been using this solution since last February. However, I have worked with SonicWall since 2007.

We have about 150 users. Each employee configures up to three connections: one on a PC and one or two on mobiles.

We are happy with SonicWall NSa's tech support. We have an account manager and whenever I run into any issues, I email him directly and he calls me within the hour. This is sufficiently fast for our needs. 

We previously ran MicroTech and FortiGate. We switched because we wanted to try something new. We change the technology we use each year.

The initial setup is easy for me because I am a specialist. I previously worked for a Dell and SonicWall partner before, so I'd configured SonicWall NSa many times before. However, now as a customer, I had a SonicWall consultant deploy it.  

We used a SonicWall NSa consultant for the deployment. 

I can't speak to any ROI we've had in terms of numbers but all technology of this type will give you a return on investment because it's secure and makes your business run smoothly.

For example, as I am in the desert and there is no fiber connection here, I was using SIM cards that gave me seven GB a day. Before we deployed SonicWall NSa, I was running seven SIM cards for a total of about 50 GB per day. Right now, I use only one seven-GB SIM card.

SonicWall NSa can be used as a perimeter and ELAN firewall.

The solution has many useful features, such as content management, user management, user filtering, and domain controller connectivity mapping.

The reporting and monitoring are a bit complex and should be easier in SonicWall NSa because other firewalls I have experienced have been more simple, such as Palo Alto. We are able to receive a clear view of our network. As a general user with little experience, it would be difficult for them to handle.

I have been using SonicWall NSa for approximately seven years.

I have found SonicWall NSa to be stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 180 users using this solution.

The support of the solution has been good. We normally go through our partner support but if anything is outside the limits of their knowledge then it gets passed onto the SonicWall support.

The installation is not easy, you should have a basic understanding of your network and what your requirements are. Generally, the implementation is done by the vendor. We have an external party who used to do the basic configuration. However, the new generation firewalls do not take much time and are easier.

We used an outsourced vendor for the implementation of the solution. 

We have approximately two individuals that do the maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for this solution and you can purchase a one, two, or three year term. Typically businesses choose the one year subscription and then later choose the three year licensing option if they are satisfied.

I have evaluated Palo Alto firewalls.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate SonicWall NSa a seven out of ten.