SonicWall TZ Reviews

The purpose of SonicWall is as a unified threat management appliance. We use SonicWall to protect our customers from cyber threat.

We have SonicWall in customer's on-premises environment and we have SonicWall in cloud data centers.

We like the central interface and we like the security features. Additionally, we use SonicWall with VPN connectivity and we have had no problems with SonicWall all these years.

In the next release, I would like to see a SonicWall integration with the DLP tool, this would be interesting. Data Loss Prevention integration.

I have been using SonicWall TZ for about 10 years.

SonicWall TZ is a stable solution.

In terms of scalability, we have to choose the right model according to the customer, their company's size, and according to the internet link capacity. Also according to the quantity of user parameters and the user quantity. The number of users and the link capacity are two parameters to define which SonicWall model is appropriate for that company.

They have a good technical support. I have no problem with them.

It is easy to set up SonicWall. It just depends on the scope of the project.

To set up for initial use takes about two hours. We start with the basic configuration and that is enough to start using SonicWall. After that, we do the more complex and detailed configuration of the security features.

Since we can deploy SonicWall in two hours with the basic configuration, we do a fast start because my users are starting to use the web and receive emails. After that, we do the next steps of the complex config for the more detailed secured configurations.

I would recommend SonicWall to other companies for their security, for the end customer and for security companies, to use as a UTM appliance. 

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SonicWall TZ a nine.

Firewall protection from the internet.

It allows us to be a little bit less worried about what's coming in and it does the same for our clients too.

It's sophisticated enough without breaking the bank.

I would like them to make the interface a little bit easier to use so you can find out where in the heck you're going instead of having to go to 15 different places to get something installed.

It's very stable.

For the small clients that we're using it for it has quite a bit of capability. We don't need anything more.

Technical support is very good. Sometimes it takes a little bit of time to get to them, but once you get to them they're pretty good.

Important criteria, when selecting a vendor, are that the product has

• to be one that my small clients can afford
• the capability of doing what needs to be done
• good quality and good technical support

We use SonicWall directly with on-premise site filtering and BPM. Now we're using monitoring tools from SonicWall to get control of the clientside and help them remotely. That's most of the cases we are using.

We like their interface very much. It's pretty easy to use. 

There is a point I don't like about SonicWall in the past and now. Most of the destinations we look at when we're detecting some user using too much bandwidth or something like that, SonicWall just gave us the destination IP address instead of the full qualified domain name. I think that's the most important part that is still missing. I think that's the most important thing for us.

The fully qualified domain name is very good flexible information. We can detect issues on each page, so we don't have to wonder a lot about other tools. It would also help if there was a simple way to log in the users, which is one login from Windows Active Directory, without having to deploy patch information or using external tools like SSO. 

I have been using SonicWall TZ for about ten years now.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SonicWall TZ a nine.

We use SonicWall TZ for firewall and security services.

I like the firewall product, the security server, and the content filter.

The price could be better for us in Bolivia.

SonicWall TZ is very stable.

SonicWall TZ is scalable. 

Technical support is very good. 

The initial setup is very easy. Enterprises just need one person to maintain this solution. But for reseller support, we have two engineers and two specialists to help the engineers.

The price could be better for us in Bolivia. 

I will tell potential users that I think it's a great product. With the new version, you also have more facilities and more features to protect your infrastructure. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SonicWall TZ a ten.

Our primary use case for this product is for remote access to smart-building solutions that we implement.

I have found this solution to be easier to use when compared to other products, such as those offered by Cisco.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is easy to install and maintain.

The support for this product has to be improved.

With what I use, I don't really require any other features.

We have not had any issues with the stability of this product. We have additional sites, aside from the smart-building, and we haven't encountered any hardware failure.

In terms of scalability, it is scalable to a certain extent. The downside is that one of the models has fiber-optic connections, but the other platforms do not support it.

While the product is fine, I find that there is no support. We purchased a license renewal and have not been able to apply it, even though I have raised this relatively simple issue with them. The lack of support is having me look into other solutions to replace SonicWall.

The setup is very easy compared to other platforms, where with Cisco or Huawei you have to move from one application to another. I did not have the training, but for me, it was really easy to use. The implementation took a few hours. 

While every site is different, based on what I have implemented it takes just a single engineer to deploy and maintain this solution.

The product pricing is relatively good, compared to other products, including the licenses. However, if you do not get support then the cost of the outlay is not really relevant.

We use other platforms including those offered by Cisco and Huawei. I had been looking into small firewall solutions that are capable of handling fiber-optic connections, rather than just Copper. I didn't want to pay for the premium platform just to use fiber-optic connections. However, the capability is not there on smaller platforms, including this one.

We chose this solution because it is easier to use than others.

Currently, SonicWall is our primary solution. To me, it can no longer be the primary because if I need support then I may not get it. With other products, it is quite simple.

For any new projects that I'll be working on, I will not be using SonicWall. This is simply a business decision that is based on my experience. I am responsible for the design, implementation, maintenance, and moving forward with the customer. If I am not happy then I cannot implement the solution because it will not help me in the future.

To be honest, when it comes to integration I would rate this product a nine out of ten. But, because of the lack of support, overall, I can only rate it one out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is to protect our network.

This product has a really good algorithm to find and deal with any kind of malware that comes into our network. We have had no incidents at all of any kind of piracy, corruption, etc.

In terms of features, I find that this product has good configurability. It also does its job really well.

I find that the user interface for the product configuration needs improvement. It is not intuitive when you are trying to figure out how to get something done.

An additional feature that I would like to see is reporting that includes metrics to give me more information about the number of viruses that it has actually detected and interrupted.

I have found the stability of this product to be excellent. It is very stable, and nothing goes wrong. It just works.

I imagine that the product is very scalable, but what we are using is probably one-tenth of its capacity. We have around fifty users.

Their technical support is excellent.

We did not use a different solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took us under ten minutes to deploy, from taking it out of the box, plugging it in, and having it up and running.

Beyond this initial setup, everything is automatic and it does not require maintenance.

I handled the installation myself, with some help from their technical support.

I imagine that we have seen a return on our investment, but it is invisible. It is a firewall and we haven't suffered any loss. Had we, then it would have been a lot more than the cost of the device and the license. As far as I'm concerned it pays for itself instantly.

The pricing was a factor for us, and we felt that the price was good.

The licensing cost is on an annual basis, and there are no additional costs.

I did some research on other solutions, and I found that they were all pretty much similar. I was having a very hard time choosing an alternative, so I went with what we already had in place.

My advice to others who are implementing this solution is to take advantage of their technical support.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution as a next-generation firewall, protecting our websites, our studio, protecting our network from attacks and also content filtering for our youth, our users on the network, and also a gateway anti-virus.

The technical support for the end user was reduced because the wipe action was already controlled. Also, the gateway antivirus prevented any virus from getting onto PCs or laptops. The administration of our network is very efficient.

I've found content censoring to be the most useful.

There can be an improvement in analysis and reporting. We need enhancement on the reporting side.

The stability is very nice. We have around fifty people using the solution.

The technical support is very good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used administrative documents from the website of SonicWall. There was no need for anything else. Deployment took one or two hours, but we had a planning session first. Without that, implementation would take a long time.

Licensing costs have been around $2,000. There are no other costs above the standard licensing fees.

I would recommend this solution, it's a good solution. I would rate it 8 out of 10.

It is used as firewalls are normally used and performance has been outstanding. We've been very happy with it. 

It has provided the necessary security, that's what it's there for.

I really don't know. I'm not really an IT person, per se, but I would say number one is the protection available, and then ease of use and flexibility. Those would be the top three.

I'm not an IT guy. What I will say is that the market seems to be going to a cloud-supported, new generation of firewall products. I think that's probably going to be important to us, the next time around.

It has been, to the best of my knowledge, trouble-free.

We haven't used tech support, at least, not that I'm aware of. We outsourced all of our IT stuff. They may have used it, but I'm not aware of anything.

We've used nothing but SonicWall, up until now.

I would say the most important criterion, when selecting a vendor, is probably the technology utilized.

The one we've got now is five years old. The next generation with the cloud-based signature and operation... I know SonicWall has what they call Capture, which is advanced threat protection type stuff. I think that is probably what we're going to be looking at next.

There are certainly a lot of options out there, and there are a lot of good options. I would say, stick with a name brand, whether it's SonicWall, or Check Point, or Palo Alto, or Cisco - any of those. You need to stick with a big name brand that is at the forefront of things.