SonicWall TZ Reviews

It is an easy solution to set up.

It's a stable solution.

Technical support has been helpful.

The price is good.

The solution doesn't have great scalability.

Getting support can be slow. 

The proxy feature is not so good.

They need to work on word filtering and also the SD-WAN.

With FortiGate, they provide an NAC solution. They provide FortiClient, which is an advanced feature. SonicWall doesn't provide NAC solutions, and even their SSL VPN client is not advanced.

I've been working with SonicWall since 2015 - almost seven years.

The solution has 98% stability. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

We have about 1,200 users on the solution. It's deployed to different departments and branches.

It's not really scalable. Not like FortiGate.

Technical support is knowledgeable, yet they are not fast. To be honest, they are good. 

Positive

In my organization, I'm working mostly for some other companies. I'm using different firewalls - except Forcepoint. I'm not working with Forcepoint right now, however, in terms of other products, I'm working with them.

The initial setup is very easy. It's not overly complex. 

Two people handled the deployment. It took about half a day. It was a very fast setup. 

For a small and medium implementation, it's quick, however, for an enterprise, it takes some time to configure the policy for the company.

I handle the deployment process for my clients. We use an internal team. We didn't open a case with SonicWall. If we face a problem, we open a case with them.

We've seen pretty good ROI so far.

The licensing is yearly based or three years. Their price compared to others is good.

We're end-users.

I'm not working on the latest version of the solution. I missed one or two updates.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. I'd recommend the solution to others. 

Our use case is that our email and CRM are in the cloud but the rest of the solution is here on our old server on premise. That includes file sharing and internal programs, too. We have some kind of replication of the cloud on premise to use in case of problems.

The feature with SonicWall that I have found most valuable is that all the models have the same interface. We don't need to learn different interfaces in the smaller or bigger models. The other thing is the actualization and upgrade politic are really strong, really good, very high quality. Lastly, the performance and the price are excellent.

I am really happy with the product. The new interface is really modern and really clear. The 7th generation is a really big improvement.

It has a very good design.

In terms of what could be improved. That is a very good question. Maybe the price could be lower. That is the only thing. Otherwise, it is really a very good product with really good performance. The only thing is maybe to lower the price a little bit - but it's not a complaint. I don't have complaints with SonicWall.

SonicWall is really a very complete product.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for five or six years.

SoinciWall TZ is really very stable.

Their scalability is wonderful. SonicWall has a migration table and it's easy to migrate the configuration of a small model to medium or all types. It's really easy. No problem. I have done this a few times and each time was perfect.

We have almost 100 users.

One person is enough for doing maintenance on SonicWall.

We do have plans to increase usage to more or less 10 or 20% more users next year.

The support is excellent

Previous to being introduced to SonicWall, I used Softforce.

The initial deployment is easy. Even in the case when a client has a particularly exotic configuration - the support is quick, fast, and very professional.

How long the deployment takes depends. Normally, the delays are the fault of the misinformation we receive from a client. Or misunderstanding the information the client provided us before we did the setup of the firewall. Normally it's not a problem with SonicWall.

We pay yearly or bi-yearly. Normally we offer the license for two or three years. But it's common to buy the license year by year.

My only recommendation is that you need to be a certificate holder to set it up and configure it. It's really important because it looks easy, but it is complex. You need to have the knowledge and experience. But this is normal for technical products. It is not a product for the regular user. It's for technical people. You need to have skills.

As a customer and a reseller, we feel they are doing a really good job.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give SonictWall TZ obviously a 10.

We use this solution to secure our network environment. We have implemented it in other locations in our organization.

It's a good solution with good features.

It's a good product, but it's not a next-generation firewall. We are looking for a next-generation firewall and considering Cisco.

We require centralized monitoring of the network features, which they have but they are not to the level that we require.

The reporting is not good. Also, the historical configuration of the data or backup is not available.

To compete in the market, there have to be a lot of improvements.

We do not plan to continue using SonicWall TZ. We are looking for a replacement because we need centralized monitoring across the organization. It has been very difficult for us to manage the firewall as it is not managed centrally. This is the main drawback in our current scenario.

In the next release, I would like to see better scalability, easier installation, improved reporting, storage configuration, backup, and centralized management with reporting.

I have been using this solution for four years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable product.

It is not very scalable, which is something that could be better.

We have multiple locations and have implemented it in several.

At this time, we have 1,000 users on the firewall.

Technical support is good. There is no need for improvement.

We did not use another firewall previously.

The installation is not straightforward. But, through the GUI, there are features that you can enable to configure.

Forcepoint and Cisco are straightforward but there are many things to do with SonicWall.

For a first-time installation, it can take half a day to deploy.

We completed the implementation ourselves.

The license that we purchased is good for three years.

We have evaluated ForcePoint but we haven't used it.

We will be testing Cisco and Barracuda in our environment.

For small organizations, its' good, and I would recommend it, but not for medium or large enterprise companies.

I would rate SonicWall TZ a five out of ten.

SonicWall is perfectly okay for businesses that need to support around 100-150 users.

SonicWall is very expensive in terms of using it for 500 users. It's very expensive compared to Cisco Meraki. Cisco Meraki is half the price with the same features. Even FortiGate is less expensive than SonicWall.

I'd like to see anti-spam included in the standard license. I have to pay more for anti-spam when really it should be the standard feature.

I have been using SonicWall for about two years. 

No issues with stability. There's an automatic update that defines everything and then implements it to where I can see it on the dashboard. I can see all the spam or malware that was detected, as well as the vulnerability. It then stops those issues. 

General maintenance is okay, but if some users require changes, or I have to deploy some policy on the users, then the steps are actually pretty lengthy.

The only issue I have with scalability is the price.

I get in touch with technical support whenever we require the support, the support is okay. We have a toll free number to connect with them. I just connect support and then discuss the issues. They take control of my firewall and then make changes as per my requirement. That's fine. The support is more or less is good. That's not an issue.

I license SonicWall TZ for three years subscription and support. I would say the price is about 20% more when compared to the competition. The standard service for what my company needs is already covered in that license. But if I need more licenses like for VPN or some other filtering, then I need to pay more.

I worked with Meraki and Fortigate. I can differentiate the products in terms of ease of use. If I go for ease of use and deployability, then I would prefer Cisco Meraki in any case.

It's not user friendly as compared to Meraki.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

If an organization has about 200 users with slow growth, then SonicWall would be great. But if the growth is exponential and rapid, they may want to consider other solutions or SonicWall NSA.

Our primary use case for this solution is connecting offices in different cities together. Also, when the pandemic hit, this solution allowed our remote workforce to connect to the network remotely, from their houses or wherever.

From our point of view, the most valuable feature was the ease of deployment.

I think content filtering is the area this product should improve. It's a little tricky to get put in correctly.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for four years.

I would say the stability of this solution is quite good. However, we did have a few issues.

I cannot comment on the scalability of this solution as we work with mostly small to medium businesses and do not worry about scaling.

The initial setup was quite straightforward.

The deployment does not take long as I can get one out of the box and ready to go for a client in 20 minutes.

The only advice I have for people looking at this solution is to either learn the product or hire someone who knows it very well.

Maintenance of this solution is done mainly by the engineer that sets it up. The only time we really need to use it is to check and make sure that we don't have any vulnerabilities. We keep the firmware up to date. Other than that, if the client needs any changes made, we make those changes. Other than that, you can just set it up and forget about it.

I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall for security purposes. We use it to protect ourselves and our clients.

The solution, as a firewall is very useful for any company trying to protect their premise through the internet.

The price of the solution is very reasonable.

The performance has been very good. Overall, the solution is quite stable.

We have found the solution to be scalable.

In general, it's quite a solid product.

The initial setup is quite simple. 

It's worked well for us over the years. We don't have any special demands in terms of new features. It has everything we need. 

Although the pricing is good, it could always be lower. If we get to pay less, we're happier.

We've been working with the solution for about 22 years. It's been over two decades. We've used it for a long time.

The stability of the solution is good. The performance is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been very good over the years.

The scalability of the product is quite good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so easily.

We have about 200 customers using this solution right now.

We do have plans to increase usage. We're moving more and more towards managing it.

For the SMV market, it's very nice support. We have no complaints. We're happy with the service they provide, especially at the price they offer.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly complicated or difficult. A company shouldn't have any problems installing it.

To do an installation might take 15 minutes, then for adding any kind of complexity into the setup, there could be an added four hours or so. It depends on your setup requirements and the environment. 

We have two people that handle the maintenance, and we also have one consultant. 

We handled it ourselves. We're integrators ourselves. It's very easy to do. 

The product offers very competitive pricing, It's quite good. We find it very reasonable. 

Users need to pay a licensing fee on a monthly basis.

We use various versions of the solution at any given time.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite happy with its capabilities.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

Our primary use cases are a site-to-site VPN connection, content filtering and in addition SSL VPN connectivity for remote desktops.

It provides our organization with very low throughput.

The site-to-site VPN connections, content filtering, and in our current remote working situation, SSL VPN remote desktop connectivity are the most valuable features. 

The areas we would like to see improvement include more features available similar to the equivalent FortiGate appliance, e.g. SSL encryption and inspection. Two-factor authentication capability would be another additional feature that could be included in the next release. 

I have been using SonicWall for 2 years. We have utilized SonicWall appliances for the last 7 years.

The overall stability has been good, there were no issues or concerns from the viewpoint.

We size our appliance based on the number of users, in this solution the TZ appliance was suitable for 30-40 users.

We experienced a very good level of support from the vendor and they have assisted us in real time via remote session when needed.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It took approximately 3-4 hours.

In comparison to competitors the license price is higher and as a suggestion, for 10-15 users potentially provide a free basic license.

We did evaluate the Fortinet FortiGate equivalent option.

It is cloud-based. I am managing it from my HQ to centralize all the branches connected with it, point-to point. I'm using the SonicWall for the gateway. Certainly I'm using it for DLP and antivirus logging, and we are using SonicWall firewall for the mail filtering. Also, we can use SonicWall firewall just like on SD-WAN. We can manage all our branches through that central point from their patches.

We have a centralized firewall here and it will take some bandwidth just like a broadband connection, but with low bandwidth or mobility connection. Through that, we can connect from the HQ to all our branches on those devices, through that particular antennae. All the data transmitted from the corporate office to branch offices works smoothly on the low bandwidth.

Because it is a software-developed feature in SonicWall, we just maintain the main firewall. With the main firewall routing there, we can do connectivity point-to-point. On the low bandwidth we can connect to all the branches from my corporate office.

In terms of what needs to be improved, I would say better load balancing and data filtering. This way we have low utilization of the net from the corporate office to all the branches. This is the connectivity there. The traffic from the HQ to all the branches goes on the low latency so that connectivity is continuous and not dropped.

In the next release it should have both the failure and load balancing combined on there. Whenever there is a failure and whenever they are load balancing, it should auto-generate the traffic for any connectivity on there, so it will run smoothly. It should also generate the alert.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for the last 10 years. We're using the SD-WAN solution from SonicWall.

This solution is quite stable.

Scalability is more than fine.

We have around 500 users with connectivity on it.

We do have plans to increase usage.

Technical support is good, there is no issue.

I am comfortable with them all: SonicWall, Check Point, Palo Alto, Sophos. Right now, I'm using the Sophos 225 and 125 in my offices and have a XG 862 in all the branches connected from there. I work on that firewall installation and also the NetScaler on the Citrix. That's simply fundamental. There are some differences with the connectivity and ruling. The rule tab is the same.

I work on their Azure AD platform and also Exchange. On the Exchange, I am working on the O365.

I am also using Trend Micro, Symantec, and McAfee.

This technology comes with these different platforms and you go on the previous one from a couple years ago. The SD-WAN-only technology is not that common. It costs more from US, Canada and from that area of connectivity. It will drop the packet from there.

It has an easy setup. You can centralize all the connectivity. This OS is running with each and everything, and you can monitor it all from the centralized point.

I also give the support for Exchange, but this will take low bandwidth and low latency from any mobile connectivity, any internet, any low-bandwidth connectivity and work fine. But other products like McAfee and Symantec can support the Exchange.

It can take time for the synchronization of updating the devices. This depends on how many devices we have connecting from the portal and which devices they are working on. Sometimes, you have the scanning on there. So it will take that functionality and we can define for root causes on the other things. We can define according to policy. So this depends on the policy design. It also depends on that criteria.

On a scale of one to 10, I would give SonicWall TZ a nine.