SonicWall TZ Reviews

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.

We are using a server for all our details, and we are accessing data from multiple countries. So, we needed a firewall.

We are using the SonicWall TZ400 model.

It has been helpful in many ways. We can see the bandwidth usage for users and how they have used it. From time to time, we get complaints that the server is a bit slow, and we then go to the reporting part to check the bandwidth usage for each user. It has also blocked a couple of viruses.

It is very user-friendly, and there is no problem in using its interface.

Its reporting can be improved. Currently, we cannot directly get the user names. It only shows the IP, which makes it a bit confusing because we need to use the IP to find the user. If we could directly get the name of the user, it would be better.

Its licensing should be improved. We would like to get the reporting part along with the license, without having to purchase it separately. It would be good if they combine both of these.

Its scalability can also be improved.

We have been using this solution for about two years.

It is a stable solution. There is no doubt about it.

Currently, we have 17 users in our country with access to the firewall. We have given them a VPN connection to the firewall to access some of their data.

It is more suitable for small businesses. It would be useful if they can improve its scalability so that even big companies can use it.

Whenever I needed any kind of support, the local partner gave me the best possible support. Their support was extremely good.

It is a bit expensive. We have to purchase the license and the reporting part separately, which makes it a bit pricey. This is the main reason why we have thought of moving to another firewall. It would be good if they combine both of these.

We were a small business at the beginning, and we did not think of allowing all of our countries to access the server, but now, we need to give everyone access to the server. We are thinking of moving to a firewall that would be better than this.

I would rate SonicWall TZ a 10 out of 10. It is a good product.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall. It's pretty much for content filtering and protection between points.

The solution works very well.

They seem to be protecting themselves, or, at least, I assume they are, when they ask you to go online to enable the device.

The solution is easy to use. The actual setup is pretty easy.

I've found the technical support to be helpful. With all of the specifics, whether it's VPN stuff or the Analyzer products, et cetera, I'll always call for help. 

I'm very comfortable with the product. I know enough to really get to where I need to be and then to get it right. For my customers, I can call and get help if I need to, and it's nice to have that option, however, I'm really quite comfortable overall with its functionality.

There was one complaint I always had in the past. Years ago, you always had to enable the device. You had to go online to enable the device. You had to connect and do that. That was always a thing in my mind: "Well, why do I have to do that? Why do I have to go outside of my network just to do that?" Now, it seems to be less of an issue. However, that's been something that has frustrated me. It's not fixed. It's still the same. It's just something I live with now. I wish you didn't have to go off your network to connect.

I would like the solution to build in more redundancy. I would hope that doesn't come with a price increase, however, it would make the solution that much better.

I've been using the solution for ten years at this point. It's been about a decade, therefore I'm comfortable saying that I've worked with it for a long time.

The solution is largely stable. The one thing I did notice was their VPN connectivity. It hadn't been upgraded for a long time - maybe even years. Whether they were doing stuff with it, I don't know. I just noticed this past last year, they came out with a new VPN client. However, before that, it was a long time. They seem to have sorted it now. I don't know if that means they'll go another extended period without updating again or not.

I haven't grown out of one before, and therefore I haven't really had to scale. In terms of their throughput, we got close on one once. The thing is, if I call an inside connection, he'll get me in touch with his inside tech, which is different from tech support and they'll do some numbers. What my throughput is, the bandwidth I actually have, what I'm working with, et cetera. I seem to be always under. I'm really not in the hundreds of users. It's typically under 100. I work with smaller organizations, and there isn't much need to scale.

I've dealt with technical support in the past. They've been good. I'm satisfied with eh level of support they provide. It's one of the selling points for me. I like to have products with good technical support capabilities.

Most of them were really sharp. I call with some questions sometimes, or I just want to set up a VPN between the buildings or something real quick and I just want to make sure I've got it right. They're just really great at assisting me. I'll say, "Look, am I missing anything?" And they'll look through and say, "This is good, but change this." Their tech support's been excellent. I'd give them a ten out of ten for sure.

I've worked with Symantec and Cisco. I haven't dealt with any Cisco in a few years. I did some Cisco and started to learn how to do certain tasks. I haven't really done much with them as my clients are a bit smaller. Cisco is an awesome product. They are likely the best on the market. However, as I recall, they don't really have a GUI and my clients don't need the size.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's nice and easy. A person or company shouldn't have any issues with the setup.

I'm a reseller.

I tend to use the latest version of the solution. I go with whatever's happening. I'll upgrade when necessary when they go end of life. 

Although it is my understanding that they also have a cloud option, I tend to prefer on-premises deployments. If I need something, I will call my SonicWall rep.

I'd recommend new users try them. They have very good service and they're easy to use.

I'd rate them ten out of ten simply for the fact that I really haven't had any issues with them at all.

We are using this firewall with content filtering and other features. 

We are able to block whatever we want to block by using this product. It provides all required security features, such as content filtering, VPN, in one box. Before switching to SonicWall, we had specified all required features.

It could be made more user friendly.

We have been using SonicWall products for around ten years. Specifically, we have been using SonicWall TZ for the last five years.

It is a stable solution.

It is fine in terms of scalability.

Their technical support is good. For technical support, sometimes we write directly to SonicWall, and they provide the solution. We sometimes also contact our vendor for support. 

We used GajShield previously. The product went down once, and the GajShield team was unable to provide the support. That's why we replaced the product. 

Its installation is very easy. It took around four hours to install it.

Implementation was done by me with some help from the vendor. I also manage this solution and use it on daily basis. We have an AMC contract with SonicWall, and we renew it directly with them. 

Its pricing is okay as compared to other solutions.

We have been using this product for around ten years, and we are very comfortable with this product. I would recommend this product based on your requirements. 

I would rate SonicWall TZ a nine out of ten.

We work based on a client's requirements. We don't maintain any segmentation information. We sell all types of solutions from SonicWall, such as their next-generation firewall, cloud solutions, and switching and routing solutions. 

Deployment is based on a client's requirements. If a client gives us the requirement for the cloud, then we do the cloud deployment. 

Its user interface and simplicity are the most favorite parts for our clients. They find it stable and easy to use. Its performance is also good. 

Our clients feel comfortable using SonicWall. It has all the facilities to block the threats.

The marketing of SonicWall has to be increased. Currently, when it comes to firewalls, most people go for Cisco and Palo Alto. SonicWall should improve its marketing and branding policies to increase sales. Other than that, it is good. 

We have been selling this solution for about two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. The entry-level companies are taking TZ 300, TZ 400, and TZ 600 from us, and they have 100 to 150 users. The bigger companies ask for the next-generation firewall such as NSA 2650 and NSA 3650.

We have about 50 customers who are using SonicWall. They include government organizations and corporates. We have lots of clients who have already taken SonicWall. They have the license, support, and subscription for two years. 

They are good enough.

We are selling solutions for most of the brands such as Cisco, Sophos, SonicWall, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. For email security, we are selling Barracuda. For those clients who have the financial capability, we recommend Palo Alto. 

The deployment duration depends on the transportation. If the installation site is far from our office, it takes time to transport it. In terms of installation, if a client's site is ready to deploy the firewall, then we don't need much time. We can do it instantly.

Sometimes, the licensing part can take some time. If someone wants a renewal, it can take some time to complete the procedure and receive the license via email, but it is bearable and not the problem.

For the setup, we have a good team, and there is no problem. We have five people in our technical team. We also get help from SonicWall's England team.

It has a yearly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others. In every sector, SonicWall is doing good. Our clients do not have any complaints. They feel comfortable using it. It has all the facilities to block the threats, and it is quite good. 

SonicWall is able to provide a solution for the requirements of our clients. Only because of the lack of marketing and branding, SonicWall is not able to reach customer premises, and that's the reason why its sale is not much.

I would rate SonicWall TZ a seven out of 10.

The primary use is for protecting the internet for client-to-search sites. We also use site-to-site VPN, and it segregates the traffic.

We are an integrator and a solution provider. We implement this and other solutions for our customers.

The most valuable features are the UTM, site-to-site VPN, and client-to-site VPN. The site-to-site VPN allows us to connect between the branches. We also use the global VPN client and the local VPN client.

I find most of the features are useful.

In some places, we face problems, especially in the client VPN portion. There are certain places where we are not able to contact. We don't have the lease line, static IP addresses, or dynamic IP addresses. This is an area of concern.

Another thing which I don't like about SonicWall is that it tries to bypass the resellers. That is not good. SonicWall suddenly calls the client, goes to them directly. That is not a good thing.

They should consider working a bit more on their ransomware application.

The solution, once it's configured properly, is unbreakable. The only thing is that on the dynamic DNS we are facing some problems. Fortinet is doing much better, compared to SonicWall because they have their own data center and the dynamic DNS is working better. It provides a much better and more stable VPN. This is dependent upon third-party servers. If their server is down then we're finished. We depend upon them, and we have to wait for some time. This is a big problem.

Scalability-wise, with most of the mid-range solutions, there is no scalability. If you want to upgrade, you have to upgrade it. One good thing about SonicWall is the modular nature of the product. That means you can buy whatever part of the solution you want. That is one beauty of it. If you don't want IPS, you don't have to buy the IPS. That option, that's much better than anybody else.

I would rate technical support a seven out of ten.

We did use a previous solution, but the client wanted to switch. 

The initial setup was complex. It is not so straight forward. It's not tough like others, but still, they can improve on it.

Deployment takes, depending upon the concentration, anywhere from half a day to two days, depending upon the password you need to deal with for all the configuration. If everything is not the same, like you have UTM features and all those things, it may go up to one day, depending upon the configuration. If the training is also added into it, two, three days including training and assistance.

We are a reseller. I've been doing this for three years. I set up most of the firewalls, and we work with the company and also we have direct end users. We work as a consultant for other IT companies.

For deployment, in terms of staff, the maximum you need, depending on the project, would be two to three people. Sometimes it will be enough even to use one or two people. A lot of that depends on requirements. 

License renewals come in around $35,000 to $45,000. That's the retail price.

When it comes to marketing this type of solution to customers, we try to focus more on the Fortinet side. However, if they are already invested in a solution like SonicWall then we continue with the same thing.

If the client is using SonicWall, we use SonicWall as well, for reliability. If they're using Fortinet, we try to use the same thing and try to minimize the cost, that's how we work.

In terms of advice, I would say that you have to look at the entire solution. There are certain things which SonicWall cannot do. SonicWall doesn't support ADSL because of security reasons but sometimes you need it, you want a little bit, you need to have that option to be working. Unfortunately, that option is not there, but sometimes you need it. Therefore, you have to evaluate the requirement.

Also, sometimes the quality is not so good. We have trouble sometimes with SonicWall. Unfortunately, sometimes the normal way of getting into the remote connectivity doesn't work because it's on a data correction. Or we only need to get into another specific connection. SonicWall doesn't support this connection. If we can't access the VPN we can't establish a check with the VPN. There was an incident like that and we had to take another break and then finish the product. You have to evaluate all this and then implement it. It's not possible to just not do something because SonicWall cannot. If it's for security you have to do it, there is no other option.

I would rate this solution between a six and seven out of ten. More work can be done on the servers, and the VPN areas also. It's a little bit confusing on the route side. I think the routes need to be cleaner, better. 

We use the solution to control and protect access between our various locations.

With this solution, our facilities are able to act as one, easily sharing resources. 

It protects against intrusion while allowing needed access. 

It needs more robust self-help documentation along with examples and things to watch out for. 

We have been using the solution for more than ten years.

The stability is great.

The solution works well.

Positive

Nothing is as robust and complete as SonicWall devices.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward and is particularly straightforward when upgrading.

Our implementation was done in a combination due to locations.

We have seen a 100% ROI. There are no intrusions. 

It was chosen by an IT support company.

Try it, you'll be glad you did, as you'll find a new peace of mind.