WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

We primarily use the solution to secure our networks in branch via SSL and VPN. We also use it for our web pages hosted on our servers. This product handled everything UTM.

The solution has benefitted us by offering a secure connection. We don't spend as much time analyzing when traffic goes somewhere. We have clearance capabilities. We see what happens in our network.

The hardware is quite good.

The solution is fast. When we commit and change items in Firebox. It just works and it is simple. When you drop a connection, it gets dropped in a second. The speed is important to us.

It has everything we need in terms of functionality.

The solution is scalable.

It is stable and reliable. 

Pricing is reasonable. 

The UI and web view aren't nice. The fonts are too small, for example. 

I've been using the solution for three years. 

It is very stable. I haven't seen any issues with it. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. I'd rate it nine out of ten in terms of stability.

The solution can scale quite well. If a company needs to expand, it can. I'd rate the ability to scale at an eight or a nine out of ten. It's easy.

I've never directly reached out to technical support.

When we need to make something really good, we need to take the time to ensure that's the case. However, the configurations are simple.

We had a business help us implement the solution. 

So far, the solution has been worth the cost.

The product isn't necessarily expensive to acquire. The pricing is reasonable. 

There are no extra costs or hidden fees. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been pleased with the product overall. 

It's our perimeter firewall.

We used to have Cisco and Cisco was pretty cumbersome. I actually still use Cisco, but I like WatchGuard for the features it has.

It provides us with Layer 2 and Layer 3 security.

If it didn't work we wouldn't be able to get to the internet and that would be a terrible thing.

All of its features are valuable, although we don't use the antivirus. We do use the web filter.

It's also the ease of configuration that I like. In terms of usability, it just works. And the throughput is 100 Mbps. It's fine.

There are a couple of things I wished that it would do, but I can't think of those off the top of my head.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for about 15 years.

It works and just keeps on working.

The scalability is fine.

Their technical support is good. Honestly, I haven't had to call them in five or six years.

We used Cisco previously. Cisco didn't have the features that I needed, like the proxies. A Cisco box would probably do that now, but back then they wouldn't. So we switched to WatchGuard.

The initial setup is straightforward. You just read the manual and follow the directions. It didn't take very long to set up. It was about an hour to have it configured and set up.

I have deployed Firebox to distributed locations. You just plug in the numbers, the IP addresses. That's all you do. It's pretty simple.

We have seen return on our investment. It just works. I may have to reboot it once every two or three years.

The pricing of WatchGuard was pretty comparable to Cisco, but I actually haven't looked at a new Cisco box in quite some time, so I can't say how they compare now.

I would advise that you go with whatever you're more comfortable with. If you're more comfortable with Cisco, then go with Cisco.

Firebox doesn't really save us time because whether you're going to configure a Cisco or you're going to configure a WatchGuard, you still have to configure something, no matter what it is. It is a little easier to configure WatchGuard though.

It takes just one person in our organization to deploy and support it, and that's me. Overall, our environment has about 300 users.

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.

My company uses WatchGuard Firebox for the data centers that work in our office. My company has websites and web applications, because of which we use WatchGuard Firebox for system security.

In WatchGuard Firebox, the antivirus and malware detection systems are areas with shortcomings that require improvement since they are the most important elements of a cybersecurity tool.

In the future releases of WatchGuard Firebox, I want to see more frequent updates.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for two years. I am an end-user of WatchGuard Firebox.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a one out of ten.

It is not a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a three out of ten. The scalability structure of the product does not work properly. There are some downtimes in the solution for which we don't get any notifications. In our company, we don't worry whenever there is an upgrade for the solution.

In my company, we are full-time users of WatchGuard Firebox, and we have applications that are not just used inside our office but publicly on the internet. My company faces many cyberattacks from Russia and China, which is really bad.

My company does not plan to increase the use of the solution.

When trying to contact the product's technical support team, it turns out to be a slow process.

I rate the technical support a three out of ten.

Negative

I rate the initial setup phase of the tool a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution's deployment process takes just a few hours to be completed.

For the deployment process, you first connect to a serial cable. WatchGuard has management software that you need to install on a computer to manage the firewall software. You need to connect the firewall serial cables to your computers. In my company, we manage just one software for upgrades and deployments.

One person is enough to take care of the product's deployment process.

WatchGuard Firebox is a cheap solution.

The systems from WatchGuard are not properly working since I have seen that my company faces exploits in security when using WatchGuard Firebox.

If you just plan to use WatchGuard Firebox in your office and not publicly, then it is okay to purchase it. With WatchGuard Firebox, you can manage your users and permissions while also taking care of the basic setup phase in your office. For systems open on the internet, you can use solutions bigger than WatchGuard Firebox that can provide you with more professional services.

Since the tool's performance is not good, I rate the overall tool a two out of ten.

We are WatchGuard partners, and we also use it on our own. We are using it for general firewall purposes and vulnerability management. We are also using some of the additional security stacks such as intrusion detection and so on.

We are one version behind the latest version. We have it on-prem at the moment, but some of our customers have private cloud solutions.

I like intrusion detection the most.

I'm pretty happy with it, but vulnerability management could improve a little bit in comparison to other parts, such as Cisco and so on.

There could also be better reporting. For example, there should be more out-of-the-box management reports. These two improvements would be nice.

I have been using this solution for around 10 to 15 years.

It's stable.

It's scalable, but I haven't compared it with others.

There are five people who are using it from an administrative perspective, but everyone is using WatchGuard because of the VPN.

I haven't interacted with them myself, but my colleagues state that their support line is good.

Its setup is of medium complexity. It's not super easy. Everything is in its right place, but it's not as complicated as other vendors. It's in the middle.

The deployment duration varies. Depending on your needs, it could take a few hours.

It's in the medium range. Its price is pretty good considering the functions and add-ons that are used.

I would advise having a proper look at the features because there are a lot of different versions, scales, and limits on different Fireboxes. You have to decide in advance which one is good for you in terms of performance, future needs, and so on. You shouldn't have too many changes in your landscape. 

I would rate it an eight 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.

It's our firewall for the internet.

The most valuable feature is the NAT-ing, the IP addresses. What the firewall does is that it NATs through the IP addresses for different servers. We can direct the traffic where it needs to go. We can control the traffic.

It's fairly easy to use. I don't think we have any trouble with it.

We've also never had any trouble with the throughput or performance. We've just recently upgraded the internet and we're getting our router upgraded. Once we get that in place, we'll see how the Firebox responds. To date, we've never had any problems.

It also provides us with layered security.

I would like to see more tutorials on setting up the Firebox.

I've been Using WatchGuard for well over 10 years.

The stability has been fine. We've had no issues with its stability.

We haven't scaled it.

There are about 40 users, anywhere from plant production to purchasing to the president, and accounting. They all go through the firebox to get to the internet of course. It's used by all management in the organization, for sure.

We don't have any plans to increase usage of the solution.

There is just one person who handles the deployment and maintenance of the solution. He's a programmer.

We didn't have a previous solution. It's always been a Firebox.

I don't believe we had any trouble with the initial setup. 

My gut feeling is that we have seen ROI. It keeps us secure and it allows us to get out to the internet. As opposed to having no protection, it has provided ROI.

I've had no problems with the licensing.

It works for us.

In terms of simplifying any aspects of my job, there's nothing I can specifically say because I've used WatchGuard for so long that I don't have anything to compare it against.

The tool's most valuable feature is the dashboard. 

The solution needs to improve its accessibility. 

I have been working with the solution for four months. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

My company has three users for WatchGuard Firebox. 

I rate WatchGuard Firebox a five out of ten.