Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform Reviews

We are partnered with Versa via Colt Technology Services. We have two SD-WAN partners, Versa and VMware. My clients use Versa for remote work because it is an on-prem solution that is good at cloud security with its cloud web gateway.

Versa is a good centralized solution where you're setting up your infrastructure in a data center-type thing. Everything is built into a single box with Versa, so it's better if you want to reduce your footprint, have everything in the same location, and set software applications in a white box situation.

We've had the odd occasional stability issue with software upgrades, etcetera. They don't support certain other third-party applications, which can be a bit limiting at times, whereas VMware seems to have a bit better integration in terms of that.

We've been working with Versa Unified SASE for at least three years.

Versa is stable, but it requires a lot of new skills, which a lot of companies struggle to keep in-house these days. People don't necessarily have the built-in capabilities within the IT teams to deploy SD-WAN.

On the Internet side of things, the solution is quite easy to scale. You have limitations regarding each box's bandwidth, but it's quite flexible. You can do anything between ten megs and two gigs of total throughput. I suppose that is scalable, but you need a different box for each of them.

We have quite a range of customers from small, medium, and enterprise clients working with Versa. It is very scalable in that direction. We can do a single branch office with ten staff or massive organizations with thousands of people.

Customer support could be faster and escalate to more advanced levels of support.

Neutral

With us, deployment takes 35 working days. The number of engineers and architects required depends on how many sites you have. You need one engineer per site, as well as one solution architect. Sometimes having two is useful because they can bounce ideas off of each other.

We do the installations ourselves, and that's gone well without any issues.

Both Versa and VMware are cheap in terms of the router. I find Versa a little more expensive than VMware in terms of remote access and secure web gateway elements.

VMware is light in terms of the built-in security in the SD-WAN box. That's the main issue with them. If you don't already have a firewall, it can be limited on that front. I don't personally use the remote access features with VMware and Versa, and I couldn't tell you exactly how it goes. They seem to both be fairly on par with each other. If you're looking at remote access, both solutions are just VPNs back into the router. But with the secure web gateway solution, VMware has more PoPs worldwide, and that's quite useful. And if you've got international companies who perhaps have staff in each location, whereas with Versa, you need a larger presence than VMware in each location to justify having an SD-WAN router. With Versa, we have clients who, for example, don't have routers in Asia and America, but they use the remote access feature to VPN back into the data centers in the UK, and that seems to work. Whereas you could deploy a box, quite a light box with VMware quite easily at branch locations.

You could pick Versa if you're looking to replace all of your infrastructure on-site. It is very effective if you want to consolidate your firewall, analytics, and all that kind of stuff into a single box. It's got a great firewall that's built into there. It does most of the stuff that you need, such as built-in DDoS mitigation. It ticks many boxes for people who don't necessarily have the capability to do that. It is cost-saving instead of taking a separate DDoS protection or buying a firewall if you're looking at a dual hundred-meg type solution. The box probably won't cost you more than £150 a month at maximum, so that's incredibly affordable versus a full-state firewall because everything comes built-in.

Versa is good when you have a heavy branch when building office infrastructure. On the flip side, that's where I'd suggest VMware. If you have one or two main offices, and most people otherwise work remotely, or you have some small overseas sites with five people or something like that, that's where VMware comes into its own.

We use it for MPLS connectivity, VPNs, etc.

I like all the features. We utilize different LAN, bandwidth transferring, bandwidth balancing, and mappings. We use it as a centralized solution, and use the same product at all our locations.

There are limitations when you connect from multiple locations. It does not work as expected.

If you have more than 400 users, then it will choke. It will not perform as expected.

I would like them to stabilize the wireless solution and have more security features in the next release.

I've been using Versa FlexVNF for almost three years.

The stability is okay. That is, it's stable when you have fewer locations. When it comes to multiple locations, I don't recommend this device.

It is scalable, but there might be some issues with scalability if you don't have an additional device.

On a scale from one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I would rate technical support at six. They are knowledgeable, but they do not respond quickly; there have been many delays.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy, and I would rate it at 4.5 on a scale from one to five, with one being difficult and five being easy.

One person can handle the maintenance of Versa FlexVNF because hardly any maintenance is needed.

Price wise, it's more expensive than is the competition. I would give pricing a rating of three out of five.

Overall, I would rate Versa FlexVNF at eight on a scale from one to ten.

I'm an IP access engineer and we are customers of Versa.

The product has a dynamic VPN feature for SD-WAN which our customers use for their network. Another valued feature is the application awareness with its VGA engine which enables visibility. Customers can see their network traffic with whatever application is being used. 

The solution lacks a mobile version where small, manageable platforms can be developed. Our customers sometimes want to collect analytical data on-premises, and we're unable to provide those features. Perhaps Versa can develop virtual appliances for site-available solutions, like analytics or management. Our customers would like to see a server VPN and mobile applications.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

We deployed the latest version last year but there were so many bugs that we quickly reverted to the previous version which is stable. When the vendor releases new features, we now test them and do a POC before implementing them.

The solution is scalable. We have 200 workers using Versa WAN solutions. They run the gamut from network admins to security admins, installation guys, field engineers, technical account managers, and more. They use the product to check endpoints or data analytics. 

Customer service is good. 

Positive

The solution is easily deployed on virtual machines, but the integration process takes time due to the service provider's requirements. The deployment is doable because the solution is developed for the service provider. It's a difficult question because the difficulty is service providers. We have to implement many systems to different platforms and if there are no integration systems, the development is simple.

This solution is relatively new in Turkey and despite them not increasing the license price, it's a relatively expensive solution. The solution has new features and if a company doesn't need those, they will find a cheaper option. We sell SD-WAN solutions as a premium VPN service, and the license is a little expensive for Turkish customers, but there is no real alternative.

We looked at some other solutions but couldn't find an alternative. We're now deploying Huawei SD-WAN solutions and will possibly deploy Cisco antenna because we are buying Cisco browsers but they lack sufficient security.

We use 21.2.1, which is the latest version of the solution.

The solution is already deployed and we use it for our customers.

The solution has different uses, depending on the customer, some using it for firewall protection and others only in its SD-WAN role. Different customers have different subscriptions.

We are talking about a managed solution. Say, for example, one has broadband linkage and 12X link. A separate structure would be required for these links. With our solution, we can create the traffic on both the links and it is auto-managed. We can select the best route. This way, if it seems that broadband link has dropped, the link will automatically be shifted to our next best route. There would be no need to deploy a firewall in it, as it is already embedded in our solution. This saves our customers from having to deploy the firewall. 

The security should be improved. 

The support could be more knowledgeable. 

While I joined this organization just two months ago, my company has been using Versa FlexVNF for around a year. 

The solution is stable and suitable. We have been using it for a number of years. 

The solution is scalable.

The tech support does not have familiarity with its product. They could be more knowledgeable. 

Installation took about an hour.

Only a single available person is needed, someone who will provide us with the internet over the site, the branch being used for the deployment. Otherwise, we need nothing at all, the internet at the branch sufficing for us to handle everything else on our own. 

We provide subscriptions for our customers on a yearly, not monthly, basis. 

In our organization, we lend support to almost 300 different customers. This is in contrast to Fortigate, in which the number we are talking about involves 100 customers. 

We do not use the product. We are its providers. 

I would definitely recommend this product to others. An SD-WAN solution is appropriate for everybody. 

I rate Versa FlexVNF as a six out of ten. 

The most common use case for Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge is its application as an SD-WAN solution. Based on my four years of experience, the best use case is when customers need SD-WAN connectivity between branches along with a secure solution. Versa offers a comprehensive solution that combines connectivity and security. It suits customers who want reliable connectivity between branches and need a complete security package.

Versa also utilizes Secure Access Service Edge (SASE), which can be integrated with its SD-WAN solution. We have already deployed SASE alongside SD-WAN, allowing users to connect to the company's business applications in the office or remotely. This integration between SASE and SD-WAN is beneficial, as we have tested it with various customers.

Versa provides analytics, but the reporting features have some shortcomings. Improvements are needed in this area to enhance the analytics' overall user experience and effectiveness. Sometimes, issues or bugs arise when using AI for device profile provisioning.

I have been using Versa for four years.

Versa's stability is quite good for simple use cases, and I would score it an eight to nine. However, stability can depend heavily on the hardware used for complex deployments. Versa is compatible with third-party hardware, and we have deployed it using Dell and Lenovo products.

I recommend using Dell for better stability, which typically scores around seven to eight. In contrast, we’ve encountered issues with Lenovo hardware, often needing to return devices for stability problems, scoring it around six to seven. Overall, using Dell has resulted in much better stability for our deployments.

When deploying new branches, you can easily add new devices. Just provision the new device, and the setup is complete. While the deployment process is straightforward, ensuring proper sizing for the secure hub is important. If you plan to scale up to twenty or one hundred devices, you must use high-quality hardware for the hub. 

We work with small to medium-sized businesses and large enterprises, including those in the U.S. with over one hundred branches. Versa is a strong solution for these scenarios. We have successfully set up Versa for up to fifty branches. For medium to large businesses, I recommend Versa if the use case involves straightforward SD-WAN with added security. If the use case is relatively simple, Versa can still effectively meet those needs.

FlexVNF’s main competitors include Fortinet and VeloCloud from VMware. Both are strong contenders in the SD-WAN space. Fortinet provides a good match for security features, making it a solid competitor alongside FlexVNF.

The setup process is straightforward, allowing users to activate the system via email or a URL link. It’s simple enough that non-IT users can follow the instructions. There have been some issues, particularly when registering devices to the controller. We’ve had to open support tickets, which seems to be a common problem. While the setup is generally easy, occasional failures require assistance from support for troubleshooting.

Versa offers cloud deployment, meaning the controller is managed by Versa. While the devices can be on-premises, the controller operates as a Versa product in the cloud.

While Versa offers an on-premises option, I haven't deployed it yet. In my country, the cloud solution for the controller is highly regarded. Although we haven’t implemented the on-premises solution, Versa can also provide that option.

Versa has an API that could potentially support future AI integration, but the Versa team has not provided any updates regarding AI capabilities. Currently, no information indicates that Versa is suitable for integration with AI solutions.

Regarding pricing, Versa is competitively positioned in the medium price range compared to Fortinet and Palo Alto. Our customers are generally satisfied with Versa's pricing during renewal. Versa's renewal costs are reasonable, making it appealing for customers who plan to invest in the solution for six to seven years without facing steep renewal fees. In contrast, with Fortinet, we’ve noticed that renewal prices can be as high as purchasing new hardware. 

Versa’s approach to network optimization focuses on application-based steering. This means you can prioritize specific applications like Zoom or Teams during critical activities like conference meetings. Versa uses this application-based steering to select the best path among multiple links, ensuring that important applications receive the necessary bandwidth.

Rather than optimizing solely for the network, the applications are emphasized. You can decide which applications to prioritize, while others may receive lower priority. For instance, if some applications experience issues, you might still be fine with them, but it’s crucial to ensure that essential applications like video conferencing remain unaffected by network congestion. 

Versa is a great option if you have a simple solution using SASE, such as connecting branches and adding a security layer. Based on my deployment experience, I can recommend Versa for this use case. It addresses the needs of organizations looking to enhance security while maintaining straightforward connectivity between branches.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We mainly implement this solution for SD-WAN service, a next-generation firewall, and UTM.

It has improved our organization because we use SD-WAN for optimizing connectivity, and it has helped lower our costs by replacing legacy WAN links with a modern WAN architecture.

The granularity when it comes to configuration and security features are valuable. It is more secure than its competitors.

The web interface can be improved. It is a bit outdated, so they need to make a more modern GUI. In the next release, they need to add capabilities to manage the LAN. Other competitors are moving towards the LAN and Network as a Service, and Versa is a bit behind in that.

We have been using the solution for two years, and we are using version 21.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support is good.

We used Nokia Nuage in the past.

I rate the setup an eight out of ten, and we completed it in-house.

There is a return on investment.

I rate the pricing a six out of ten, with one being the most expensive and ten being the cheapest. The price is mid-level, so they are not very expensive or very cheap. There are no hidden or extra costs.

We evaluated Nokia Nuage and Cisco, and then we chose Versa.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. Versa is more suitable for customers who have large deployments because it doesn't compete well with the products suitable for small to medium customers. So they have a different product called Titan, and it's suitable. The solution is better for customers who have medium to large deployments.

We mostly implement this product for our clients.

There are many great aspects to the product. 

It's flexible. It's possible to have it on a universal CPE. The CPE is a small server or device that can be installed on the client's premises which the FlexVNF software can be installed onto. It doesn't have to be a vendor-specific CPE. This can help users reduce costs. Other solutions don't offer such flexibility.

One of the interesting things about the solution, which is not an easy feat, is that they offer a multi-tenancy solution at the CPE level.

They also allow for the integration of their solution as a provider with other security vendors, like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Forcepoint. With other vendors, they stick with their own security appliances or images. This solution, however, really does try to integrate with everything.

In terms of support, they are very focused on SD-Wan technology. They are not working on multiple technologies. This ensures your business is very focused. It allows you to be very focused on your support and ensures your level of support will be very high. The customers will be satisfied with the results. 

The development is fast because they are only focused on one direction. Of course, SD-WAN not only means that you are optimizing the routing and the speed of the internet but also it allows you to optimize the security. Users can have better, more advanced security features. 

They are focusing on integrating their security features right now. They are growing quickly in this direction. That means they're giving a lot of attention to the security within the product. It's making it a more complete product without forcing you to just use Versa.

Overall, it's nice and very user friendly. That's what makes it so successful. They give you complicated features but with a very simple user interface, and that's been a big success for them.

The support needs to be improved. 

The interface does still need enhancements to make it even easier to operate in the future. They have complicated policies that need to be applied.

We've been using the solution for about one and a half years now.

If the setup is done properly, the solution is quite stable. There's no need to worry about bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash.

It is easy to scale. The solution has considered various roadmaps and focused on future growth for organizations. Some features may not be active just yet, however, they are in the roadmap.  They are looking at, for example, delivering Ethernet over two or three layers, over the internet, which is very interesting and is, in my opinion, revolutionary.

The solution benefits huge companies, more so than smaller ones. Currently, various product features are capable of fulfilling any big enterprise requirements. They are trying to get the certifications from international security communities like Gardner. Their focus is more so on the larger scale organizations and they are trying to compete with companies like Cisco, Palo Alto, etc. Since it is meant for bigger companies, it can get pretty big itself.

Their support is okay, but they need to grow it out faster. They need a better mechanism for getting quick responses to clients and to hire more people on the support level. The gold standard is Cisco, and they should try to be more like that. 

They have a very focused product and because of that, they need a very focused support staff. They should have different people who are specialized on different aspects. They don't have to spend a lot of money to do this, they just need to ensure they have the right people in place to answer questions.

It seems a bit unfair to judge them in totality, however, as I just had one instance with them so far. 

The solution's initial setup is complex in that it's not plug-and-play. You won't face zero-touch provisioning with this solution. Instead, there will be a staging process. It requires certain commands and you need to run it on Linux or Unix.

The solution has some issues with staging, and, if you compare it to other products, you'll see other vendors are much more straightforward. Zillow Clouds and Meraki are two good examples of a straightforward setup.

For myself, I have a technical background. These things are interesting for me, and I'm happy to do it, but on the commercial side of things, the customers don't really want to deal with difficult setups. Usually, however, it's the partner that provisions for the client, so the client never has to really deal with these issues. If you are a partner or a supplier, you'll end up doing this part yourselves. So, for those that know the product, it can be considered straightforward.

After that, users will enjoy a lot of features. 

It only takes about one hour to deploy the solution. I handled the POC myself and I've done some extensive training. I didn't feel comfortable in staging Versa devices. This was a problem. For comparison, if you would like to stage a VeloCloud device, it may take from you 10 minutes, whereas Versa could take about an hour.

If you are facing complications, you need to spend time understanding them before doing the provisioning. It will take some effort to understand the staging process, but it's worth it to take a step back. 

I handled the POC myself and I've done some extensive training, so I was able to handle all the provisioning and staging. We found we struggled a bit with our engineers figuring out how to write everything correctly. Unlike other deployments where it's a very straightforward couple of clicks, if you make a mistake in provisioning there is a receipt required, and you need to call the engineer from your Versa vendor to help troubleshoot problems.

In the end, it's not only about cost. A lot of big enterprises don't care about the cost. They care about having a single point of contact to take care of their security and internet routing optimization. Having one support ultimately reduces costs, as there would only be one maintenance contract and one device.  

We have a lifetime implementation. We're using the latest version of the solution.

It's a good product for high-end and large enterprises, but smaller enterprises might not be a good fit.

I'd just advise that especially surrounding the initial setup, a new company needs to ensure they have the right support in place. Companies need to make sure their SLA's are very clear so they can get the support they need from the outset and into the future. Compare companies and be clear about the requirements and you will have an easier time.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd give it full marks, however, I do believe that they can continue to improve on the existing product in various ways. 

It's a purely internet-based solution. That means the customer already has their Ownned up-link(s), which we call DIA(Direct Internet Access). That means the customer brings their own connections to set up the virtual SD-WAN network and just use our white-box solution. On top of it, we set out an SD-WAN appliance which can be controlled by the setup on the CTG side.

Versa FlexVNF helps customer uses existing infrastructure to quickly complete the SD-WAN deployment through software appliance. Except for the edge hardware equipment used in customer case(s), SD-WAN provider no need invested in any hardware inside, but completely uses the existing Cloud platform.

Versa FlexVNF supports multi-tenancy, which is very important for ISP's TCO in running a SD-WAN network. Meanwhile,Versa FlexVNF is purely software based solution that help CSP(cloud service provider) upsell SD-WAN business.

We need to think about how to leverage the MPLS-VPN customers, so to integrate the SD-WAN network. We are thinking about how to make customers consolidate the loads to an SD-WAN network so that the customers can have a bigger chunk from the SD-WAN plane.Under the trend of Digital Transformation, enterprise customers looking for lower price with border bandwidth. In the designed direction,customers can have critical data be transferred by MPLS-VPN network while non-critical data or some labeled traffic can be transferred by the SD-WAN network. Considering the uncertainty of the economic situation, perhaps more companies will seek to expand data pipe based on the original network instead of building a new network. For new business areas which requires more flexible contract term,and shorter provision time, SD-WAN integrated with MPLS-VPN would be a important direction.

I have been using Versa since 2017. 

The stability has been quite good. It's a purely software-based solution, so it can easily be scanned or installed in a virtual environment. It's very adaptive to those environments.

Good and stable

It is generally stable but when we have trouble with deploying or configuration we encounter certain issues. Their support is helpful and they respond in a timely manner. 

The price is consist of several aspects but it makes sense for the market.

For the SD-WAN solution, it's not just the pricing for accreditations from the solution side. We need to combine the hardware and the connections, even managing service ourselves. Customers need to have a integrated solution from a skilled engineer team, but not just to judge if the solution providers are fair or not. But generally, when we compare with other brands, I think this solution is lean and agile.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. There's no brand that can rank a 10. A ten from my perspective, means good enough to ramp-up. Eight is the highest that can be scored amongst the choices of SD-WAN brands. I think the SD-WAN products Versa has have great space to improve. For example, automation. We are saying it's an SD-WAN solution, but it's not fully automatic for the service provider side. It requires a skilled managed service team to handle service delivery, even senior technical team involved.Their expertise is very important in customer solutions deploy and operation.

It takes a lot of manpower to go to market which is why I'm not fully satisfied. Also, currently, we have to treat the solution as an isolated direction to go with. If the customer has invested a lot in their network, like Cisco, Huawei, or even Juniper, the customer needs to abandon their current invest. In that case, we hope that Versa will allow the customer to leverage their current and past investments.