My experience with WatchGuard Firebox has been that it operates similar to other firewall services available in the market, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet, however, it does not provide the same level of throughput and features.

We are using it as a firewall, enabling geofencing, creating policies to allow or block traffic, and setting up site-to-site VPN connections on the box. WatchGuard Firebox is deployed on-premises, as it is a hardware box.

The most valuable features of WatchGuard Firebox include everything that a firewall should support, however, they do not quite reach the mark compared to offerings in the market.

It does support features such as tunnel and policy creation, enabling geofencing and similar functionalities. WatchGuard Firebox simplifies my job through the policies we can define. When we create a policy, it simplifies our workflow, which helps with our overall efficiency.

I hear complaints that the LAN network is slow. It is also difficult to diagnose issues if any devices get compromised; for example, if someone hacks our system, it becomes hard to trace who made changes or accessed the firewall. While it is user-friendly for configuration, troubleshooting is challenging, and they need to improve their system to be more competitive.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for five years and only for one customer.

The stability of WatchGuard Firebox is good. That said, performance does vary. Our on-site team has reported feelings of slowness at times. When we verified up to the firewall, it worked fine, but there are issues with traffic hitting the firewall, which could indicate performance problems related to throughput.

Since we are using an old firewall, that may be part of the issue. I am not sure how the new devices perform.

In terms of scalability, WatchGuard Firebox rates as five out of ten. When I log into the firewall, the user interface and features compared to newer firewalls are not up to the mark, which includes functionalities such as filtering, web filtering, threat protection, user identity, and UTM features that need improvement.

My experience with WatchGuard's technical support has been that it was hard to get them on the call initially. Finally, we connected with someone, and I would rate their support as eight or nine out of ten once we were able to speak with them. The challenge is getting them on the line.

My role in the initial setup and deployment of WatchGuard Firebox is limited to supporting the existing infrastructure for one customer, as I haven't been involved with any new implementations.

I don't handle the pricing aspect of the solution.

WatchGuard Firebox is only deployed in one location within my customer's organization, and at the other locations, we are using Meraki and FortiGate. We plan to replace WatchGuard Firebox soon. My impression of the spam blocking capabilities of WatchGuard is not very favorable, as I don't think it is very capable. I haven't noticed effective web ratings or IPS signatures, which may be due to managing an older OS; I'm not certain about the performance of the newer versions. I am not aware of whether the transition to faster ports on WatchGuard Firebox supports maintaining productivity levels during peak usage times. Based on my experience, I would rate WatchGuard Firebox as five out of ten overall.

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.