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.

I actually use the host ransomware prevention feature of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response, and we haven't had issues with that. This is currently maintained by our partner in the WatchGuard management. We are a town hall, but there is an enterprise provider that is currently managing all the WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response installation.

I am not familiar with the automated remediation tools in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response and how they help in reducing manual intervention because this is managed by our provider.

I have not yet utilized the cloud sandboxing feature in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response.

The centralized visibility and control of endpoints in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response helps coordinate cybersecurity, but this is managed by another tool that is installed in our PCs. It is installed and configured, but we don't use it because the main feature is with the EDR. It is configured but not used as a model per se.

I would like to improve WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response, but I don't manage it directly. The main problem that WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response has is that they use several tools to do the same tasks, and they are sometimes very complicated to use and very slow.

For example, we had Palo Alto deployed 10 years ago, and there were many things that were better managed by Palo Alto than the tools we currently have in WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. The main concern is about managing tools and having a unified management model for managing the firewalls and response. They have many web interfaces that do many things, but they don't have one tool that does all the things that a firewall should do.

I have been working with WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response for about three years.

The deployment for WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response took about three months because we deployed many components around the system. Previously, we had Palo Alto, and we changed all the structures to WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. We changed VPN, detection mode for several things such as HTTP navigation, and many other products. The final substitution took about one month. The most delayed deployment was the VPN because we have around 1,000 users.

The technical support of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is generally helpful. We have had two issues related to the VPN, and we experienced 24/7 activity from their team. Their support was very powerful as they responded very quickly and stayed online with us for two days.

However, when we find something strange in the firewall, such as access issues or configuration changes, the WatchGuard team has to recompile some new features or make a new deployment to our installation to solve the problem. This was not the case with Palo Alto. They are very powerful in this sector, but they have some issues in the way they manage the firewall system.

Two years after the deployment, we have found that WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is more difficult to manage than Palo Alto and Fortinet. Our biggest concern is not about price but about management.

The installation and implementation process of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response was handled as a part-time job by one person.

I am satisfied with the licensing cost and pricing of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response because we came from Palo Alto, which is a very expensive firewall. When we tried to renew the Palo Alto license, the cost was beyond any reasonable range. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response seemed very powerful and appeared to be a good solution, as recommended by our partner. At that time, we had several options, including Fortinet.

I have not seen any positive impact or benefits for my company from using WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 7.

The main use cases for the WatchGuard Firebox are to protect our customers' network, VPN connection or IPsec, or SSL VPN, as by default, it's a protection of the network and the users, and servers.

WatchGuard Firebox technical support is very easy for us to contact, and we also have presales engineers such as Jeremy Schramm, who is French and provides excellent technical help; he visits our office one day a month to assist us in trying some solutions.I utilize AI within the WatchGuard Firebox, as we use the interconnection with threat syncs, and AI is implemented; we try to sell our customers XDR or IDR, so there is AI in the product.I have a good impression of the efficiency for threat detection provided by the WatchGuard Firebox, as we have cybersecurity teams and sell security about the product, so we think it is a good product to protect our clients.

I would like to see the WatchGuard Firebox improved because I work with an experimental presales engineer directly, and we have some presentations regarding the SASE project under the XDR solution, so we know the good projects now.The WatchGuard Firebox has certain features, but the challenge is that we have some clients who don't have a network or are only mobile users, which leads us to think the future is in SASE products, not in the WatchGuard Firebox.The mobile coverage should be included with the WatchGuard Firebox, but in some cases, there is no WatchGuard Firebox because the client has no network or all users are in different locations.

I have been working with the WatchGuard Firebox for probably 10 or 11 years, as we are IT resellers and sell all customers these firewalls, so it's the product by default, and all customers we have have by default, Stormshield WatchGuard Firebox.

I find the WatchGuard Firebox stable with no problems; it's performing well.

I find the WatchGuard Firebox scalable, as it's easy to change configurations from this product to another one, although it's always complicated to buy another product and there are no upgrade solutions at a lower price.

WatchGuard Firebox technical support is very easy for us to contact, and we also have presales engineers such as Jeremy Schramm, who is French and provides excellent technical help; he visits our office one day a month to assist us in trying some solutions.On a scale of one to 10, I would rate the technical support of the WatchGuard Firebox a 10.I would recommend the WatchGuard Firebox to other businesses, as it is very easy to communicate with them for support and the presales engineers, who are very easy to work with.

The only problem we have with the WatchGuard Firebox is about the price or the options that are very expensive for customers, as other firewalls such as FortiGate offer free MFA authentication, so the main trouble is the price of the product.

I find that we have no trouble with the WatchGuard Firebox, as it is very simple to install because we have certified engineer installation, so it's very easy for us.

I have faced challenges with the WatchGuard Firebox regarding price since we work with customers who use the Stormshield product, which is less expensive and French-made, while some products from the USA have left a bad impression, and some customers ask us to find another French or European product.

The main differences between WatchGuard Firebox and other solutions such as FortiGate or Sophos are that I find the product heartbeat in the Sophos product very good; however, in WatchGuard Firebox, there is a similar set of products as firewalls, showing no major difference.

My advice for users looking to start working with the WatchGuard Firebox is that the easiest solution is to realize a POC to test the product, so we can watch and review reports with customers. On a scale of one to 10, I would overall rate the WatchGuard Firebox as a solution a nine.

We have all kinds of customers, including schools, colleges, institutes, and organizations. We do not work in a specific area, and we have a wide range of customers in various sectors.

The Firebox offers valuable features such as network security, URL filtering, UTM features, intrusion prevention and detection, and authentication. It also supports VPN, IPsec, and point-to-point communication. I did not encounter any problems after configuring threat detection and protection, intrusion prevention systems, and intrusion detection systems.

The only problem I have with Firebox is the grouping issue. When implementing a rule using a group of IPs, it is not possible to do that directly. I have to manually add all the IPs, and this is where I think WatchGuard should improve.

I have been using this solution since 2016.

The support system is similar to EPDR and EPP. They will register my case and either call me back, email me, or send me an article or key bulletin if things are sorted out.

Otherwise, they will take a remote session to resolve the issue. They have a centralized portal where I can get support for EPP and EPDR.

Setting up Firebox is not an easy task for everyone. To set up Firebox, one should have at least professional knowledge. Not everyone can do a Firebox setup because it is executed based on protocols.

One cannot simply pick up Firebox and go through a basic configuration. For Firebox setup, having knowledge equivalent to Cisco CCNA associate level plus professional level is essential.

Additionally, understanding basic routing and switching is necessary. Having knowledge of IPs and professional skills is crucial. Unlike Sophos, which is easy with a 'next' approach, configuring Firebox requires deep knowledge about protocols and how they work.

My only issue with Firebox is the grouping issue. I recommend Firebox since this device will not let anyone down. If someone drives a Volkswagen, they may find it challenging to switch to another car. It is the same with WatchGuard; once someone adopts this device, they will likely not buy another.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

I'm using it in the banking sector only. Basically, I'm using it for security and other purposes, including data loss prevention. Security is the main purpose in banks.

Nowadays, we are using small models for SD WAN also, depending on security purposes. Basically, we have received a good return on investment.

The basic problem is that for every firewall in India, there is a need for a one-year or two-year subscription. That is the main issue for all users. Particularly in India, the cost for renewal after three years is 75% of the hardware cost, which is a significant problem.

I've been using VoiceBot for the last two years.

It's scalable for us. If we're going for more concurrent users, we need to change the entire box. In that case, they provide a discount for replacing the old box. I think it involves seven or eight users.

The technical support is good. Their distributor is in Mumbai, and they arrange everything about support. In case we need the same development PeerSpot or engineers on-site.

It depends on the company, however, it usually takes about two hours, not more than that. I have a team of specialists for this, consisting of three people.

Only three or four people are involved. It relies on online support by remote access, not on-site visits.

I don't know the current cost. It's all imported products. It's not assembled in India. It's expensive us here.

Currently, I'm using WatchGuard. I'm also using pfSense in some cases.

The major problem is pricing and licensing loss. In India, the cost for renewal after three years is 75% of the hardware cost, which is a significant problem. Your review may be available to third parties and on third-party websites.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The primary use case of the Firebox mainly revolves around bandwidth management, unnecessary web blocking, application control, and protection against brute force attacks. It is also implemented for load balancing, SD-WAN, and branch-to-branch connectivity from one location to another. We also use it for securing access through VPN and enforcing network security policies.

The WatchGuard Firebox has helped in securing our network by implementing a strong firewall with various features like VPN support, gateway antivirus, and application control. It has aided in preventing brute force attacks and managing our bandwidth effectively.

Some of the most valuable features of the Firebox include web blocking, application control, protection against brute force attacks, load balancing, SD-WAN, and VPN support. These features help us manage and secure our network efficiently.

One area for improvement is the limitation in the product portfolio compared to competitors like Fortinet, which offers a broader portfolio including Authentication, VPNs, FortiMail, Sandbox, and Email Security. WatchGuard's focus on UTM solutions may not meet the needs of all enterprise customers.

We have been using the WatchGuard Firebox for approximately five years.

The stability of the WatchGuard Firebox can vary depending on the customer network environment. The performance and latency may differ from customer to customer and infrastructure to infrastructure.

The scalability of the Firebox depends on the specific model and the number of concurrent users it can support. Different models offer different VPN capacities and can be tailored to fit the needs of various sizes of organizations.

Customer service and support are not explicitly mentioned in terms of rating, but overall feedback seems positive.

I have previously used various solutions including CyberRooms, Sophos, Fortinet, SonicWall, and other competitors. We largely switched to WatchGuard to integrate their UTM solutions and later their acquired endpoint security portfolios.

The initial setup of the WatchGuard Firebox is straightforward and time-saving. It is designed to be user-friendly even for those with basic IT knowledge, making it easy to deploy and manage.

Implementation can be done by internal IT teams. WatchGuard also provides support for implementation, ensuring that the configurations are appropriately pushed as per the model and requirements.

WatchGuard offers cost-effective solutions, especially beneficial for economically-constrained customers. Pricing and discounts are deal-dependent and vary based on customer requirements.

We evaluated multiple products, including Fortinet, SonicWall, Sophos, CyberRooms, and various others in the market.

To maintain the efficacy of the Firebox, it is crucial to renew the subscription to get security updates and additional support features. Ensuring the subscription is up-to-date is necessary for ongoing product support.

WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is used to monitor traffic and give alarms to the administration if something goes wrong. It reacts when services protected by it are attacked and sends notifications that something is amiss.

There is a significant improvement in the security of our organization. It's challenging to quantify the cost savings precisely, but it prevents potential breaches and protects our intellectual property. If a breach occurs, it could be catastrophic and very costly.

The most valuable features include the ability to raise alarms when there are issues, easier configuration compared to other vendors, centralized update management, and keeping the product updated efficiently.

The pricing of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response could be improved. It's not the cheapest option available. That said, it often meets our needs effectively. There are areas for improvement in making the product more economical.

In the future, I would like to see enhancements in eliminating threats more intuitively, allowing easier identification of issues.

I have been working with WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response for about five years.

In terms of stability, there have been no major issues after upgrades. I would rate the stability of the solution an eight out of ten. There were no significant problems related to this part of the solution.

WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is quite scalable. It is designed to handle expansion and increase in usage efficiently. I would rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The customer service and support from WatchGuard are excellent. In Finland, the technical support team has always provided outstanding service whenever required. I would rate the technical support team ten out of ten.

The initial setup involves configuring many elements, which can be a bit challenging. However, with detailed knowledge and preparation, the setup process can be completed in a day or two.

Usually, WatchGuard's sales team in Finland includes a great technical team. I often turned to them if there was something I could not resolve right away. They provided really good support.

It's challenging to put a monetary value on the return of investment for this product as it primarily enhances security. Its effectiveness in preventing breaches significantly impacts overall cost savings.

WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is not the cheapest solution. It usually falls in the middle of the price spectrum. However, considering the overall picture, including support and ease of use, it can be more economical in the long run.

There are alternative solutions available, but if you are using WatchGuard firewalls, it is quite easy to use this product too.

In selecting security solutions, it's essential to consider the overall support and long-term ease of use. WatchGuard products, including firewalls, tend to be easier to configure and use compared to some cheaper alternatives.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company mainly for security management and also for VPN.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ease of use. For budgetary purposes, it meets our requirements.

For most of the part, the tool's interface is quite simple. The product can improve in terms of layout to provide easier access and viewing to users, especially for the reports.

One of the things that I think is missing in the tool is the area of managing IPv4 traffic via the IPv6 tunnel. If a few features were added to the tool, it would be great for migrating our network from IPv4 to IPv6.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for three years.

Considering we have even used the tool in our company for the past three years, we don't see much problem with the devices, except with what we call the updating and patching processes, which require some downplay and everything. I think we are quite satisfied with the tool's performance in our company.

I do believe the solution provides devices with a profile for a much higher requirement, but it all depends on the number of users and everything. Currently, my company is not that big, but we are supported by good vendors. I do believe the tool is scalable in terms of the devices because the product does provide a much higher model, but we don't need it because we are quite a small company.

In my company, we have only around 200 users, so we don't have many staff members.

My company contacted the solution's technical support regarding the services, especially when we had some new requirements in terms of configurations and settings or when there were new protocol rules and policies and policies that needed to be implemented. I rate the support an eight out of ten.

Previously, we used Sangfor, which is a brand from China, for our firewall and internet access management, but we switched to WatchGuard Firebox three years ago. One of the biggest reasons to use WatchGuard Firebox was related to the area of expertise. Our team or staff had experienced some lack of knowledge in Sangfor. After my company figured out which product was easy to learn and after making some comparisons, we decided to go for WatchGuard Firebox.

Compared to Sangfor, I think one of the advantages of WatchGuard Fire is the VPN solution, which includes a certain number of licenses in the package. There is no requirement to purchase more VPN licenses. The con is that Firebox is a part of the existing solution provided by WatchGuard.

When it comes to the product's initial setup phase, our vendors support us, so they handle the setup process. We don't have many issues or problems during procurement or setting up all the configurations for WatchGuard Firebox.

The solution is deployed on the hybrid cloud model.

Last time, we got the tool ready within three days. After we provided all the information that the vendors required regarding the setup and configuration settings that we needed, they set it up within three days. A third party also provides the tool's maintenance services.

From the budgetary perspective, I believe the proposed price for WatchGuard Firebox was certainly much better than the other model that had been promoted to us before because the concerned department in our company procured the tool. I don't have any specific information on it.

I am not sure about the tool's price as the commercial part is under a different department. I think the tool is quite competitive compared to the other brands.

The tool's most effective for managing threats revolves around the area of the reporting services it offers, which is cloud-based reporting, so we can get a lot of information from the services.

I don't have much experience with other models, so I can't speak about WatchGuard Firebox's security. The good thing is that because it is easier to handle, and the company that supports us provides us with a lot of information, it is easier for us to operate the product.

WatchGuard Firebox VPN features significantly enhance operations, making it easier during COVID-19, when many people work from home. There are very good features, I recall, whereby you can access office resources without requiring employees to come to the office. The tool did help us a lot during COVID-19.

Our company has a data leakage prevention solution for our email. It is quite intuitive, but it's not WatchGuard Firebox.

Whether I would recommend the product or not is something that depends since I work in a small company where the income is not too much. Other companies of similar sizes might find some similarities with our organization, so I can recommend WatchGuard Firebox to such users or businesses. Bigger or corporate users who have much more requirement settings or a large number of users should look for a different brand that can support the large numbers.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

WatchGuard is easy to implement and inexpensive. When we get a bulk-off license, we get a very discounted price that is competitive with alternative or competitor solutions.

We can manage multiple sites within one console through the cloud.

Since WatchGuard acquired Panda, there may be synergies in consolidating both solutions under a single name to reduce customer confusion. Additionally, WatchGuard must address the issue of commercial licenses available at very low prices online, creating conflicts and challenges during sales to end users.

I have been using WatchGuard Gateway AntiVirus for five years. We are the distributor of WatchGuard in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

It's stable. It does not cause any system crashes. Upgrading and updating are very easy and straightforward.

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

The scalability is high because we can add additional workstations or endpoints. It's very easy to add to the management console.

It is for all solutions because it will depend on the number of licenses. If it is an enterprise, the cost will be low as it depends on the number of licenses.

We have some issues with technical support. They provide low responses.

It is easy to implement and configure. It depends on the number of workstations that we will install. If we are going for one machine, it will not take more than ten to fifteen minutes.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The price is acceptable compared to competitors. It is the lowest price of all cybersecurity solutions.

I rate the product’s pricing a six out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

The endpoint itself is an agent. It is implemented on-prem, but the management can be done on-prem or in the cloud.

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

We use the solution to ensure that no data breach, such as credit card details and national insurance numbers, leaves the company. However, we have to allow some information to go through because we send a lot of information to the National Healthcare Service.

If we don't want specific data sent out, the tool will stop that data based on the policy we have allocated to it. It has reduced the risks of sending data where it shouldn't be. I haven't faced any issues with the tool's integration capabilities.

WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention needs to improve its support.

I have been working with the product for eight to nine years.

I haven't had any issues with the tool's stability, so I rate it a ten out of ten.

I rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has 380 users who use it daily.

The tool's support is responsive and very helpful.

I chose the tool because it was easy to use and implement. I haven't faced any security breaches since implementing it.

WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention's deployment is simple. You can complete the policies you want to run in a few hours. Once it's been set up, we only need to analyze it every now and then to ensure it's still functioning as intended.

WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention's pricing is expensive. I rate it a seven out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to others. It's effective because it stops data from being sent out easily once set up. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.