WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

We have a web server on the optional network. Then, on the trusted side, we just run all our computers out through the Internet. We don't do anything too elaborate with it.

We do have some technicians and some design center salespeople who call in. This is best usage that we get out of the solution.

We don't host our website internally anymore. We used to host our website and it did help with that, getting everything set up. We have just recently removed that and gone to a third-party. But, that was something which was very useful, setting up our internal website and NATting IPs.

The solution has increased productivity with our outside salespeople being able to connect into their computers and use those remotely.

We are able to limit where users can go, what they can do, and what they can access, so they are not wasting time doing things that they shouldn't be doing. It does help to save time, e.g., limiting Facebook. 

We are able to segment our FTP website off on the optional, setting up the rules specifically. There are certain outside IPS coming into our computers where we have different machines out there setup where technicians can remote in, etc. Being able to set those up to specific IPS, not just allowing full access, is probably our main use for setup.

The usability is good. I like it. I don't have any issues. Most everything that we have tried to set up for what we use it for is pretty straightforward and easy to use.

We have probably had it for the last 10 years. I have been here the entire time.

The stability is very good. We haven't had any issues with ports or anything else. Everything has been very good as far as the stability and issues.

The performance and throughput that the solution provides is good. We haven't had any issues as far as when we have connections and things going on. So, it's very good.

The stability is good as far as our use. I feel like we do have room. We have extra ports on it. We can set them up if we need to, but we don't need to use them. However, I feel we have room to expand and grow, if needed.

We have probably 75 users setup. Mostly, they are authenticating through to get out to the Internet. We do have some protections on it: virus stuff and different websites that users can and can't get to. We have groups setup for that. That is our main use from the inside with most of our users going out. Then, we have five or six users who remote into computers and other things.

There are not necessarily plans on expanding anything at the moment. We are pretty much set where we are. Usage is not too heavy, as it's mostly users getting in and out with us restricting what they can get to.

I have only had to call once or twice for anything in any of the time that we have had the solution. Most of the time, if I do have a question or something, I can hop onto the forum and there is an answer, then away we go. As far as my experience with the forum and just a few calls, it has been very good. We haven't had anything that has hung us up for a long time.

WatchGuard was pretty much our first solution like this. We did not use anything else before it.

The initial setup was straightforward. It walked through everything as far as the configuration. Everything that we needed was right there. So, I didn't have to search for anything. It was easy set up.

We went from a different version to this version. Even from that to this version, it was probably up and running within an hour.

I usually set it up.

We didn't consult anyone. We didn't really have an implementation strategy per se. We just set it up (like the old one), then went through and looked at some of the new features and things we might want to use.

I maintain it and and set up whatever needs to be set up. The other IT guys can come in and do stuff if I'm not here. Generally, it doesn't take too much time to get anything set up that we need.

It saves us a couple hours a week.

We don't have any other costs other than the licensing stuff.

We did look around at a few different things. We just kind of settled on WatchGuard. It seemed to have the features that we needed, so we went in that direction.

I'd give it a 10 (out of 10). I haven't had any issues. The few issues that we have had, such as not knowing where to go, they have been answered quickly. I am going to give it a 10 because of its easy to use. If we have a question, it's easy to get an answer. Also, it's very simple. For most of everything that we do, we have been able to do them pretty easily. We are very happy.

If we were to ever look at something else, I would look for something that has ease of use, simplicity, and ease of setup. That is what I like about this. Everything is pretty straightforward and easy to find. The interface being easy to use and find has been very helpful.

We don't use a lot of the logs. Generally, we don't need to. If we do need to go look at something or pull something up, the information is there in HostWatch or the logs. I have been happy with it.

We're not using the cloud.

I use it as my firewall. 

We are using it to filter our email.

It roadblocks most everything, as far as viruses and stuff like that, from getting into my network and does a good job of that.

If there is any conflict, the reporting feature will kick out all types of information, which is great.

The most valuable feature is if I need to control spam. I can control everything with it, anything coming in or out of my network. The controllability is phenomenal.

You can control how you want things to go in and out of it. So, it is great for that.

The software in it could be a bit more friendly for an amateur user. I look at it and don't understand what half the stuff is. Looking at the interface, it is all mumbo-jumbo to me. It's not a simple interface. You have to be an IT guy to understand it. It is not for your average person to use, then walk away from it. It is much more entailed. It could be a bit more user-friendly, but my IT guy knows what he's doing with it. I just let him do most everything.

They need to make it so you have a step-by-step guide which goes through and sets it all up for you. However, they don't have that. You have to know what you're doing with it.

It seems to be stable.

There are always updates for it. So, they are always improving it. We are always putting updates into it all the time. They do a good job of trying to keep up on everything.

I just have a consultant who comes in every so often to do deployment and maintenance.

I haven't seen any restrictions as far as the scalability is concerned, so it seems to be just fine.

All of our users are just office workers. 

Our IT guy talks highly of the technical support, saying that they are pretty knowledgeable. He never complains about them. 

I've had WatchGuard ever since I put my network together. All I've used is WatchGuard.

They were discontinuing support for the last one that I had. Therefore, I had to upgrade to the M200.

The initial setup is complicated. Unless you know what you're doing with it, you can make mistakes, which are really difficult to recoup from. You have to know what you are doing with it. Otherwise, you'll screw it all up.

It only took our IT guy probably an hour to set it all up, but he knows what he's doing with it. He works with them everyday.

I just used an integrator for the deployment, who was good. I have worked with him for years.

There is an additional cost for support on top of licensing. When I bought my new unit, I received additional time added to my support. 

I just went by what my IT guy recommended, so I didn't really evaluate any others because he's very knowledgeable on all of these type of things. I just went off of his recommendation.

The functionality of the unit is great. However, you have to be pretty knowledgeable on how to work with its interface.

I don't any plans to increase usage. The product is always on and always being used.

Intellectual Property protection for our and our clients' data.  We strategize for deployments of new products into Federal and State healthcare formularies.

I discovered the WatchGuard T-70 could still keep the data near the 1 gigahertz data speed, without compromise on the security perimeters being active simultaneously.  I got that information through my subscription with IT Central Station.  The WatchGuard T70 does not come with WiFi capabilities, offering flexibility for what WiFi devices you prefer.

Default set-ups found on the WatchGuard site and via YouTube are very helpful - the screen for set-up and adding additional features are lists with checkboxes.  Understand what you click before you do so.

The set-up and additional feature screens are old in design and very granular.  You have to know what you are doing.

Stable - However, you need to add APC/UPC battery back-ups to avoid power outages/surges that will mitigate your time for trouble-shooting post-power outage.

Yes, I had a positive experience with tech support.

I previously used FortiGate. I moved from the FortiGate brand on account of when you turn on all of the FortiGate capabilities (80-C & 90-D), the protection is active but your data speeds drop significantly.  We had a Verizon FiOS fiber optic true gigabit subscription.  I noticed data rate drops as our 3rd party support team also noticed.  Upon system review, the function of the reduced data speeds was the Fortigate capacity.  We were literally locking up where we couldn't communicate. So, I went with the WatchGuard XTM T-70.

Go to the WatchGuard site:

>enter the model and serial number of your device

>That loads the site automatically with the provisioning apps, firmware updates and other system checks relevant for that device

> The set-up is nearly automatic

> Once the firmware is updated, the device reboots

> Drill into the site for additional steps and additional software you can activate - you have to know what they are talking about to understand which checkboxes to click and why.

> You can reference the YouTube "JSCM" for extra support and background helps that go beyond the WatchGuard site. 

No vendor team and no "in-house" beside myself.  We are a company of under 30 people, I am an IT dept/System Engineering staff of 1.

I have far less ( 50-75%) less admin time trying to figure out why our system is so slow.  That's gone.  The admin screens are informative, especially the Dimension application, reducing your search time for the information you need to assess what your users and network are doing.

If you are experienced, I can recommend the T70 set-up with minimal support and reference.  Since I am relatively new as a systems engineer/IT design, I have had to reference a lot of online sources and hire an expert familiar with the WatchGuard line of products to help shorten my learning curve and get the system up and running quickly.

Yes - SonicWall, Baracuda and Dell.

When considering a solution like this:

> not only putting data security at the top of my list

> user convenience as the second consideration.

If there's anything extra that I have my users do, I have to really look seriously at those trade-offs.

The WatchGuard Firebox is our version of a firewall. It has several use cases. 

WatchGuard Firebox's two-factor authentication feature is particularly useful and provides an added layer of protection. It's been a reliable and stable solution for us.

When working with WatchGuard, specifically in configuring Panda Security on the portal for the first time, it was challenging for me. Creating the partner center and setting up the account in Panda Security was not straightforward. Although working with the Panda Security part itself is easy, I faced difficulties in creating the partner center. So, maybe this could be an area of improvement. 

Another area of improvement is the license. The price could be cheaper. 

We currently use WatchGuard Firebox T20 model.

There are around 26 users using this solution. In terms of user capacity, the T20 model can support up to 20 users.

WatchGuard Firebox is easy to use and set up. I work with the solution every day, so I'm quite familiar with it. In my experience, setting up WatchGuard has been straightforward. It didn't require much effort. 

Although I have spoken to others who mentioned that implementing it for the first time can be challenging, I personally found it easy. I had no issues with the setup.

Whether it was deployed in the cloud or locally, it took a month. I maintain the solution and provide technical support. 

I recall when I bought the first Firebox; someone advised me to start by seeking assistance from the WatchGuard support center. I found all the necessary information to implement the solution. That's why I believe it was relatively easy for me to implement it the first time. However, I am aware that many people find it challenging to implement WatchGuard on their first attempt.

Currently, we use an internal lead to sell WatchGuard to our clients. So, the price varies. However, it's worth mentioning that our internal use of WatchGuard includes Panda Security as well.

We do pay for a license. It's a three-year license. It is an expensive solution. The price could be lower.

WatchGuard is not a widely known solution in my country. People here tend to use CheckPoint, Fortinet, and Palo Alto more. However, I believe WatchGuard is a good solution that more people should be aware of and consider. We are actively working to promote it in Angola. In fact, there might be more companies in our country that could benefit from using the WatchGuard solution.

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

It's mainly an internet gateway that is used for internet gateway protection and remote access.

There is room for improvement in the threat protection, data packet inspection, and performance of the solution. Generally, it's just a lower-end product. It does the job but doesn't do it very well.

Compared to Palo Alto, for example, some of the main differences are zero-day protection, performance, deep packet inspection, and App-ID. I'm not really a fan of WatchGuard. We only use it with one client and we're trying to get them to get rid of it. I prefer to use Palo Alto instead. Industry analysts have voted Palo Alto the number one firewall for the last eight consecutive years, so if you want good protection, it's a no-brainer.

I have been working with this solution for 18 months.

The solution is reasonably stable. 

I do not think the product is scalable.

The set up was quite straightforward and we handled it in-house. It took a few hours to deploy the product. One a scale of one to five, one being very hard and five being very easy, I would rate the set up as a five.

It is an entry-level product, so the price is cheap.

The program requires maintenance, including updates, patching, and subscriptions. 

My advice to someone considering this project would be to look into Palo Alto instead. 

I would rate this solution as a one out of ten.

We provide the solution to our customers. It's primarily used for security.

The reporting aspect of the solution is what is most valuable to us.

The solution is very easy to configure.

The product has been very easy to use.

We've found the stability to be very good.

The scalability is excellent.

The pricing of the product is reasonable.

We've been in touch with technical support and found them to be very helpful.

There are many fantastic features.

Often, customers don't end up using a lot of the features.

They should move more towards integration with other OEMs such as web application firewalls, et cetera. There should be better integration and a way to configure multiple vendors into the same data center in order to offer more flexibility. 

We've been working with the solution for about seven to eight years at this point. It's been a while. 

The stability of the solution is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite reliable in terms of performance.

We've found the scalability to be very good. There are no limitations. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

We've contacted technical support in the past. We've found them to be very good. They are helpful and responsive. I would say that we are quite satisfied with the level of support we've received.

The pricing of the product is pretty good. I would describe it as fair. It's not overly expensive.

One of our customers wanted us to compare this solution against Azure Firewall to see which would be better. We're still looking into that.

We are resellers.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's a pretty fantastic solution overall.

This device is for Unified Threat Management (UTM). Our primary uses for this solution are as a firewall, antivirus, anti-spyware, web-blocker, and APT blocker.

I can say that it has been defending our organization. There are from ten to one hundred attacks per day to our IT forum and our email server.

The most valuable feature for small and medium businesses is the support for various protocol proxies. Without any subscription, they can realize an IDS/IPS solution.

It would be wonderful if the WatchGuard team develops nice products for threat intelligence. They have a subscription service called DNSWatch, but this needs to be improved.

This product is very stable.

There is no problem with the scalability. If I need a more powerful appliance then I can buy it, but I can also use less powerful devices. Overall, scalability is ok with this solution.

We have about fifty people using this solution. There are two IT specialists, and all of the rest are salespeople, office support, etc.

The technical support is very good. I know only of one company whose tech support is better than WatchGuard's.

I have experience with Check Point UTM, and I find that this application has approximately the same functionality, but it is cheaper.

The initial setup is very easy. It is not complex.

For a small organization that has between fifty and one hundred users, the deployment can be done in perhaps fifteen minutes to three hours. Our deployment took approximately one hour.

Only one person is required for maintenance.

We handled the deployment ourselves.

I can see ROI within several months.

The cheapest configuration, for maybe five people, is approximately $500.

There are several other license steps that vary based on the number of security services that are included in the subscription.

We had considered several other solutions such as pfSense, MikroTik, and Fortinet. However, we became a WatchGuard distributor for the territory of the Russian Federation, so we are using only WatchGuard solutions.

It is a very reliable and very easy solution. I think it is the best solution in the world, judging by its price and quality.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It's our external firewall and VPN solution.

• It allows us to access the outside world.
• It keeps us safe from external threats coming in.
• It allows us to have remote access.

The fact that it just works is one of the most valuable features.

It's fairly intuitive when trying to figure out how to try to get things configured the way you need them. It either works or it doesn't, which means if you have a failure you have a chance to get things fixed.

In addition, I have not noticed any throughput issues at all. The device we have will actually operate at faster technologies than we have available to us.

Management of the solution is great and it also provides us with layered security. It has onboard virus scanning features that allow it to scan before something gets to the host. It will also stop a person from going to a site that is known to be bad.

There is room for improvement on the education side, regarding what does what, rather than just throwing it at a person and assuming they know everything about it. A lot of times, you have to call WatchGuard support to get the solution that will work, rather than their just having it published so that you can fix the problem on your own.

We've been with WatchGuard now for about six years. We've got their XTM firewall.

Their support is awesome. I get a solution to my problem within 24 hours, and if they don't have a solution within 24 hours, they usually have a higher-tier tech working with me until the problem is solved.

The setup was fairly straight forward. We were actually dealing with a failure situation when we received the product. So we had WatchGuard support on the lines from the get-go, helping us get started so that we could get the information. It's something that we would not have been able to do had they not helped.

The main firewall was deployed within a day. The satellites were deployed within a week.

We have two home offices that they're distributed to. Typically, I get the device in, I provision it with the workflows and the exceptions they need, and then they plug it.

I can't say whether Firebox has saved me time. It's a firewall and it does its job. So whether it be WatchGuard, SonicWall, or anybody else, if it does its job and I don't have to look at it, I'm happy. I haven't really looked at a lot of the reporting features. I mainly go in there, figure out where people are having troubles, and fix their problems.