The basic functionality is fantastic. It has been performing well. I generated a report on one machine, using that as the deployment machine. When scanning the network, it discovered machines on the network and deployed the same endpoint protection from that one machine I have on my network.

I can see all of that from any cloud solution. So far, it has been really easy to install, deploy, and have visibility on the endpoints that I manage.

I'm just looking for a few extra features, which are likely included in XDR and the other additional software services. Mainly the FortiEDR system. If I go through the computer status and look at the risk, it's a very basic assessment.

Compared to Rapid7, which is a highly rated vulnerability scanner, WatchGuard is more limited. Rapid7 can give me vulnerabilities like autorun being enabled and provide solutions to fix them. It can also reassess vulnerabilities.

However, the EDR Core I'm using only gives me basic information, like "File full of fire and execution detection" as a high vulnerability. It doesn't tell me how to fix it, just that it's a risk. It's very minimal in terms of risk assessment. Rapid7 would say, "This software is outdated," or "You're using an older version of SQL." It's much more detailed, whereas EDR Core is more scaled-down and doesn't provide a full assessment.

So, I'd like a few extra features, especially around threat severity assessment.

I have actually been using this for the past two weeks because I'm using it in a test environment before I deploy it into anything.

I want to make sure that the features they are providing are what my client really wants. Regarding compliance, it really receives no complaints.

So, with the EDR tool, which is what I currently use, I have deployed it in my business. I checked if it could gather my asset information, software information and scan my machines for any malware. So, that basic functionality is fantastic.

It has been stable so far. I haven't noticed any performance impact on my machines. My only complaint is that I can't schedule scans. I can only see live monitoring of micro activity. I'd like to schedule scans at specific times, but maybe that feature is only available in higher subscription tiers.

I've only been using it for two weeks. I would like to see more features, especially with the addition of xDR or Endpoint Detection and Response Pro (EDR Pro).

I'm still exploring what's available in my current plan. Once I understand everything better, I'll reach out to WatchGuard if I need additional features or clarification.

However, I requested a full cybersecurity overview from their sales department to explore all their solutions, including network asset management, penetration testing, etc. They'll recommend different subscription tiers based on my needs.

Fortinet is the main competitor, especially when considering firewall and firewall configuration. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE) is also in the mix, as some of our clients use it. These are competitors for a comprehensive security offering, not just antivirus.

Other competitors who offer similar features like asset management would be Trellix, SentinelOne (formerly McAfee), Microsoft Azure Sentinel, and Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR.

In my experience, WatchGuard shines in deployment simplicity, especially for firewalls and firewall configuration. The renewal process is also easier, and their documentation, support library, and overall support experience are excellent.

The initial setup was easy. It took ten minutes. I read the instructions. I downloaded the software and installed it on my machine in a minute, and it automatically showed up in the cloud console.

It even identified other machines on the network and asked if I wanted to deploy protection to them. All I had to do was provide admin credentials and let it run. Within half an hour, all the protected machines were visible in the cloud console, including my servers and workstations.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. One of the easiest EDR deployments I've ever done.

Some parts are deployed from the cloud. I have my cloud account, but I downloaded the client software that I executed on individual machines. So, it's hybrid, but the core Threat platform is in the cloud. I just installed the client on each machine. So, it's primarily a cloud solution.

I did it all myself.

The pricing is acceptable and competitive. WatchGuard's pricing is in a range where they can compete effectively with other vendors. WatchGuard offers similar features for a comparable price, making them a good option for small businesses like ours.

We mainly support small businesses with 1 to 5 users, or maybe up to 50 users at most. That's why we chose WatchGuard. It's cost-effective for small office, home office (SOHO) environments.

It is very easy to use. It's designed for anyone, even non-technical folks like myself. Anyone could pick it up. It's like "IT for Dummies" - read it, and boom, you're a WatchGuard specialist! But, knowing deployment requirements helps, but WatchGuard makes it user-friendly.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine 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.

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 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.

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.

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 use WatchGuard Firebox for the site's firewall and VPN solution. The WatchGuard supports remote gateway and mobile VPNs. WatchGuard Firebox serves as the primary firewall for the site.

The solution has many security features. We have an intrusion provision system and filtering and block filtering. These features have been enabled, and we have created services around them.

WatchGuard has several limitations, particularly concerning throughput and performance, and management, firmware updates, and customer support need improvement. The level of support from WatchGuard is not as good as what we get from Cisco and other vendors. The response time is high even in times of priority issues.

Moreover, the solution doesn’t have deep filtering. This limitation affects packet analysis, traffic analysis, and traffic monitoring, particularly regarding troubleshooting. On the other hand, Fortinet Firewall offers a deep level of troubleshooting and packet filtering. This allows us to obtain detailed information in scenarios like drops or disruptions to understand where the issue occurred, whether with the customer or on our end.

WatchGuard cannot perform packet captures for multiple IPs simultaneously, restricting us from achieving them individually. Due to these limitations, we are considering migrating to Fortinet.

I have been using this solution since 2018.

The solution is stable, as I have been using a couple of devices without any restart since 2018, and there has been no downtime for these devices.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

The level of support from WatchGuard is not as good as what we get from Cisco and other vendors. The response time is high even in times of priority issues. It doesn’t have deep filtering. This limitation affects packet analysis, traffic analysis, and traffic monitoring, particularly regarding troubleshooting. On the other hand, Fortinet Firewall offers a deep level of troubleshooting and packet filtering. This allows us to obtain detailed information in scenarios like drops or disruptions to understand where the issue occurred, whether with the customer or on our end.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup around six on a scale of one to ten, one being hard and ten being easy.

WatchGuard is better when compared to other firewalls. It is affordable for a midsized company.

WatchGuard is affordable, with features for individual customers, end-users, and midsized companies. However, big businesses with growth and an increasing workload have to migrate.

I rate the solution’s pricing a four on a scale of ten, one being lowest and ten being highest.

We don’t know much about what's happening in the traffic pattern. We will have the opportunity to configure everything. We can use the firewall for dynamic routing and various other tasks. However, despite its capabilities and offerings, there are still some limitations. WatchGuard doesn’t offer deep-level packet filtering or in-depth packet analysis for companies with numerous applications. WatchGuard is a good solution if you require a comprehensive analysis of your organization’s activities within your budget.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven 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.

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.

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.

We have had some difficulty introducing the brand on the market because, in Angola, we have another brand with a more aggressive approach than WatchGuard. The end users prefer other brands like Sophos and Check Point over WatchGuard Firebox. We will soon be an expositor of WatchGuard Firebox. We have some customers that use Panda Security just for endpoints. We have some customers that use WatchGuard Firebox directly or indirectly.

WatchGuard Firebox is the most powerful firewall for Wi-Fi security.

The scalability of the solution needs improvement.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for more than one year.

WatchGuard Firebox is a stable solution.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox ten out of ten for stability.

At the moment we are providing support to five customers.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support team is very good. We have always received quick responses from the support team.

WatchGuard Firebox’s initial setup is very easy. The configuration is easy since the solution is user-friendly and has an intuitive platform and dashboard.

The solution is not expensive and customers pay for a yearly license.

We have a direct relationship with the master distributor of WatchGuard Firebox in Angola and Africa. WatchGuard Firebox is the only solution we work with for firewalls and cybersecurity.

When we start WatchGuard Firebox's deployment, we redirect it to the cloud.

Overall, I rate WatchGuard Firebox ten out of ten.

WatchGuard integrates with our firewall to provide threat detection and remediation.

I like WatchGuard's network segmentation features. It's easy to configure user policies.

WatchGuard should offer more visibility into user activity. For example, we should have more details when WatchGuard denies a user access to a port.

I have used WatchGuard for about 10 years.

I rate WatchGuard nine out of 10 for stability.

I rate WatchGuard nine out of 10 for scalability.

WatchGuard is easy to set up.

We have seen an ROI.

The price is excellent.

I rate WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response nine out of 10. I recommend it.