WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

We use the product for added security layers, allowing us to control and manage our network traffic effectively.

The product's most valuable feature is DNS filtering, which blocks users from accessing unwanted websites.

The product's technical support services need improvement. 

We have been using WatchGuard Firebox for a few years.

We never encountered stability issues. The system never went offline.

I rate the platform’s stability an eight out of ten.

The technical support team takes time to respond.

We did use a different solution previously. We switched to WatchGuard Firebox because it offered added security features. 

While your supplier assisted with most of the setup, it still took some time to become accustomed to using the product effectively. The installation process spanned about two days, with the first day focused on physical installation and the second day dedicated to configurations. Beforehand, your provider inquired about your existing services, such as multiple Internet providers and virtual networks, to ensure seamless integration with the WatchGuard Firebox.

We took help from a third-party consultant for product implementation. Additionally, there were four staff members from our organization involved in the process.

As per my knowledge, the product is more affordable than alternatives like Barracuda, which was reported to be way more expensive. However, I wasn't involved in the detailed discussions about these aspects, so I can't provide more in-depth insights. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

Before choosing WatchGuard Firebox, we evaluated other options. Some of the alternatives we considered included Norton and Barracuda. However, Barracuda was ultimately deemed to be out of our price range. Norton was also considered but not chosen, partly due to pricing concerns. Ultimately, a partner highly recommended WatchGuard, which influenced our decision to select it as our security solution.

In our environment, we've deployed the WatchGuard Firebox primarily to secure remote access for users. Previously, we relied on remote desktops, but due to security concerns, we transitioned everything to VPN connections facilitated by the Firebox.

Initially, the ease of management and configuration of the Firebox for administrators was around four. However, as we became more familiar with the technical details and how to use it, that rating increased to an eight.

Firebox operates effectively in the background, blocking potential threats without a need for constant monitoring. It allows us to focus on other tasks knowing that our network is protected. As for ROI, it's challenging to provide specific metrics without detailed analysis, but overall, the enhanced security by the Firebox justifies the investment.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to protect our systems. We also use it for real-time detection.

The tool provides automated responses. It has a lot of features.

The interface is not the best. I do not like it. The reports must also be improved.

I am currently using the solution.

I have contacted the support team a couple of times. They solve our problems in a few hours.

Positive

The product is easy to install and manage. It is connected to our SOC.

The solution is cheap. I am satisfied with the price.

Our partners have asked us to try using FortiEDR. I don't know if we will change because we are quite happy with WatchGuard.

Our partners integrated the solution with our SOC. We have not used the threat prioritization features. We can install the program. It is only used while developing applications. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Security use cases for on-premises deployment involve safeguarding my customer's internet connections to ensure the safety of their digital assets.

I appreciate the intuitive design of the dashboard, which is both clear and self-explanatory. Additionally, the ongoing efforts to update the product and the valuable feedback received from technical support hold significant importance for me. Centralization is a crucial feature for me as it allows me to have all sites and customers accessible under a single click, not limited to just one.

I believe there is room for improvement in policies, with the potential to enhance the margins further.

I have been familiar with WatchGuard products for over fifteen years.

In terms of stability, I haven't encountered any significant issues, so I would rate it a solid ten out of ten.

It is very scalable, I would rate it eight out of ten. The majority of my clients are businesses with a maximum of up to twenty-five users.

If I encounter any challenges, I promptly create a support ticket with WatchGuard. Typically, within less than twelve hours, I receive a response from a technical expert addressing the issue. In general, problems are resolved in less than forty-eight hours. I am highly satisfied with this aspect.

I experimented with Fortinet and SonicWall years ago, and the experience was not particularly successful. Consequently, I transitioned to WatchGuard due to my longstanding involvement in the project spanning almost two decades. The interface has consistently seemed logically structured to me. In comparison to other solutions where I often find myself needing to look up and search again, the technical aspects may be similar, but the installation, control, updates, management, and monitoring processes are significantly more straightforward for me with WatchGuard than with its competitors.

The installation process was relatively straightforward for me.

The deployment time varies depending on the site and the assistance available. For clients without an on-premise systems administrator, which is usually me, the process is quicker. However, for clients with their own IT systems administrator, deployment tends to take a bit longer due to the explanations and training required. The duration can range from a few hours to half a day.

Over the years, the costs have increased, especially since I cater to very small businesses. While they comprehend the necessity of investing in network protection, these features have become relatively expensive. I would rate it six out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

The solution is used to protect, detect, and respond.

It is a lightweight product. The interface is very good.

The website must provide more information on the product. The tool must be promoted more.

I have been working with the product for almost one year.

The tool is stable. It is easy to maintain it.

Our customers are small, medium, and large organizations.

It is easy to deploy the product.

The price is comparable.

We recommend the solution to our customers. We are resellers. We provide technical support to our customers. Overall, I rate the solution a nine and a half out of ten.

I would describe primary use cases as a solid and cost-effective solution, especially when compared to other comparable solutions like Fortinet or different Cisco firewall suppliers and network security providers. However, I must say that it's not so intuitive to install, maintain, and configure. Nevertheless, it remains a solid and cost-effective solution.

We have seen it effectively stop some network security threats. It provides cost-effective protection and is easier to set up compared to other solutions. With other providers, it sometimes takes four to six or even eighteen weeks to deploy or receive the equipment. With WatchGuard, we have solutions that can be quickly deployed.

The most valuable feature, in my opinion, is the dimension logging platform and the network traffic filtering. The VPN feature is also very useful and valuable. Additionally, the remote site connection and VLANs are important.

One area of improvement is the deployment process; it is not intuitive.

The centralized administration and management, as well as the cloud-based interface, specifically the user interface (UI), menus, and module configurations. The administrative UI/UX could be significantly improved.

Compared to other solutions, I would say it's not a complete solution in certain settings. The centralized administration and XDR capabilities need improvement. One aspect that many firewall and network security manufacturers fail to understand or integrate well is the endpoint, XDR, or EDR solutions. For example, Cisco has its own endpoint solution, which is not very good, and other manufacturers like Check Point or Palo Alto have their own EDR solutions. The primary issue is that they haven't effectively integrated these solutions with other manufacturers to create a more comprehensive and cohesive offering. It's important to have a solution that integrates anti-malware and antivirus XDR features. In terms of mobile device management, that's a feature I haven't seen.

I've been using it with some of my clients for about three to five years, depending on different situations. One of them is not selling or reselling it, and another one is in settings where clients decided to switch from our supplier and buy WatchGuard.

We normally use Total Protection.

I would rate the stability of WatchGuard a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability of WatchGuard a seven out of ten. 

There is an area of improvement in customer service and support. 

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward, but there is room for improvement. It's generally straightforward, but there are areas that can be enhanced.

There is an ROI for some time. However, after the first year, it becomes less straightforward to see a return on investment when equipment needs to be changed or licenses need to be renewed.

The price is very good, but the follow-up on the sales channels, especially the local ones, is not so good. Some MSSPs or suppliers do a better job than the brand's direct channel administration.

My advice would be to rely on a reliable partner who understands your operations and has experience in deploying and scaling WatchGuard.

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

In Italy, small and medium-sized enterprises are prevalent, with fewer than 20 devices being used in most companies. As a result, we typically use entry-level routers such as the T25 or T45.

We sell security and management services for our clients' structures, which allows us to provide visibility into events and the flow of actions taken by both the users and our company. We are pleased to have this tool within the Firebox toolset, as it enables us to show customers what is happening during an incident, as well as to continually monitor the structure.

Management and visibility are the most valuable features.

Visibility with an app that could extract or connect the data without entering Firefox directly would be an improvement.

I am looking for tools that can improve mobile security because our Firebox router mainly focuses on physical perimeter security. While we can use VPN to connect laptops to the network, mobile phones, and tablets can only rely on wireless networks, which don't provide direct endpoint security. Therefore, I believe there is a need for additional measures to connect mobile devices securely to the Firebox router.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is generally stable, although we have encountered a few hardware issues that were promptly resolved by replacing the affected devices.

The support is great and specialized.

The initial setup is straightforward. Our deployment strategy is simple. We require a couple of people. First, we set up the structure and connect the Firebox, whether it's a new installation or a replacement for other devices. Next, we prepare the configuration, LAN, and rules. Then, we make a brief stop to switch the core device to the customer's structure. After that, we move to each endpoint and use VPN or other tools to complete the setup. The direct operation on the endpoint site takes less than an hour, and the preparing phase another two to four hours.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We are utilizing an MSP licensing model and are content with the minimal amount spent on the devices rather than committing to long-term licensing.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

The maintenance of a simple structure is easy.

I recommend trying WatchGuard Firebox directly but keep in mind that the wireless devices can only be connected to the wireless network.

I used to use it for different customers; however, now I use it for one site. We primarily use the solution for application control. It's to block applications we don't want users to use. 

We like the blocking capabilities on offer. 

I like the brand, and I know the product really well, which is what keeps me using it. I have a good knowledge of the solution. 

It is stable and reliable.

The solution can scale well.

Technical support has been helpful. 

We have witnessed an ROI as it has helped with security measures. 

The solution does what it does. I don't notice any real shortcomings.

The licensing can be a bit expensive. 

We just started using the solution again. I've probably used it for six or seven years. 

The stability is very good. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

I'd rate the product ten out of ten in terms of reliability. 

We have around 400 users on the solution currently. Pretty much everyone uses it, including IT, care workers, nurses, et cetera.

It's scalable. I'd rate it nine out of ten in terms of scalability. 

Technical support is good. They are helpful and responsive. 

Positive

I did not previously use a different solution. 

The solution is deployed on-site. However, we use the cloud to look at everything.

The solution is pretty easy to set up. 

It took me about an hour to set up the solution. 

I handled the setup myself. It was simple, as I've worked with it for a while. I didn't need any outside assistance. 

We have witnessed an ROI as it has helped us secure all of our sites. 

The solution is a bit pricey. We'd like the price lowered a bit. 

We pay every three years for a license.

It's comparable to other firewalls. One of the downsides is that, after three years, there are some extra expenses for new hardware. 

We are customers and end-users.

I am using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. 

Our company used the solution for endpoint detection response. 

When you download the executable file from the internet, it automatically sandboxes to make sure it's not doing anything incorrectly. It is a nice feature that any EDR should do. 

The solution is a bit confusing and there are unusual complications with setup. 

I used the solution for four months at my previous employer. 

The solution is quite stable with no observed issues. 

The scalability is not an issue because you just add more licenses as you get more endpoints. 

I used the solution at my previous employer but use other EDR solutions at my current employer. 

There were some complications with the setup that I have not experienced with other EDR solutions. 

We worked with a third party because some devices would not accept the solution and we wanted someone there to help us troubleshoot. You're supposed to be able to deploy from the cloud but we had to physically double check that the solution installed on each device.

Two members of our team handled the deployment process with a third party representative. We experienced some issues along the way such as devices not accepting the solution. 

There should have been a better method for deployment and it took a long time. It is unclear if the issue was with our vendor or the solution, but the process wasn't very nice. 

The solution is a bit more expensive than other options. 

A license costs around $180 for a three-year commitment. For comparison, Microsoft Defender costs $164 over three years but you are only locked into a one-year commitment. 

There isn't anything revolutionary about the solution's technology. It does what other EDR's do. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.