I use WatchGuard Firebox for our private cloud protection, addressing our needs regarding DLP, firewall, and intrusion detection.

I host solutions for files and honey behind WatchGuard Firebox, but we no longer host websites or anything that would require bottlenecks.

I appreciate the interface and the client of WatchGuard Firebox the most. Many firewalls do not have a client to connect, and instead rely on CLI only. I also use the management server, which is a fully managed server, and I appreciate the feature to schedule operations.

It did reduce system bottlenecks and improve our operational throughput.

The CLI could be improved in WatchGuard Firebox, and I think integration with a cloud solution—such as Microsoft Enterprise and Google Cloud—has room for improvement. It has the feature recently, which is quite good, but it is not very perfect and has been available for only two or three years, while other solutions have had this feature longer.

Due to COVID and other factors, our license for mobile SSL VPN cannot simply be upgraded; we can only upgrade the number of simultaneous users. I think it could be improved because migrating from Firebox medium to Firebox large is the only solution if we have just a small use case.

I have used WatchGuard Firebox for 15 years, coming from my past enterprise, so the answer to how long I have been using it is quite long.

I do have bugs, but the only bug I have is on products that are late on firmware because they are not subscribed anymore. I know the bugs are fixed, but I cannot have it because it is obsolete. However, I have just one WatchGuard Firebox unit that is licensed, and I have no bugs on it, so I am happy with that. I rate it a nine.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it a seven. Other solutions share the same problem, but six years ago, we had only 300 persons in the company, and WatchGuard Firebox was very good. Due to COVID and other factors, our license for mobile SSL VPN cannot simply be upgraded; we can only upgrade the number of simultaneous users. I think it could be improved because migrating from Firebox medium to Firebox large is the only solution if we have just a small use case.

I recommend giving the technical support for WatchGuard Firebox a nine on a scale from one to ten.

I do not have the choice to compare WatchGuard Firebox with other solutions or other vendors because my internet provider works with Fortinet for all our agencies. The Fortinet solution is in the MPLS setup, but that choice was made by the provider, not us.

The deployment is easier, so I would say it is easier rather than complex.

I have used WatchGuard Firebox for 15 years, and because I know the product, deploying a Firebox just takes a few hours for me.

It is difficult to estimate the return on investment with WatchGuard Firebox, but I would say it is around twenty to thirty percent.

I do not pay the bill, so I feel comfortable about the pricing, and for me, it is not expensive. I think it is a little cheaper in comparison with other solutions; Cisco is more expensive and I think Fortinet is also more expensive.

We had mostly twenty Firebox units, but now we have just one which is licensed, while the others are not licensed anymore because we go to an MPLS solution with our provider, so I use WatchGuard Firebox less than in the past.

In IT, we have five people in production and around seven persons in development, which represents how many users work with WatchGuard Firebox in my organization. Overall, the company has about eight hundred or nine hundred persons.

I have been working in IT for twenty years.

I am not concerned about the spam blocking capabilities right now since we work with Google for email, and we are migrating to M365, so it is not behind WatchGuard Firebox. In the past, around seven years ago, I was concerned; however, I am not sure if it has improved since then, so I cannot give a rating for that.

I recommend WatchGuard Firebox and would give it a nine in terms of recommendation. Overall, I rate this product a nine.

WatchGuard Firebox is configured as a perimetral firewall across all our locations. We have two sites that are connected to the internet, and each site has WatchGuard Firebox configured as a firewall. The most significant features for network security in WatchGuard Firebox are the VPN and the firewall, including the configuration of the entrance and in-out ports for communication with external sites. We have many site-to-site connections, and we use this feature frequently.

The most significant features for network security in WatchGuard Firebox are the VPN and the firewall, including the configuration of the entrance and in-out ports for communication with external sites. We have many site-to-site connections, and we use this feature frequently.

We had many bottlenecks before deploying WatchGuard Firebox, but when we switched to a higher version of our firewalls, the bottlenecks were solved. Currently, we have no bottlenecks around the communications with any of our sites.

Deploying WatchGuard Firebox was quite easy, but we have had some problems regarding the VPN and the administration of the tool and the two firewalls that we have.

When comparing WatchGuard Firebox with our previous solution, Palo Alto, we have had some problems in administration because of the tools. I think that they have some aspects in their system that are cloud-provided, but they also have an on-premise solution, which makes this combination good. Although I should say that when compared to Palo Alto, we have taken a step backwards.

In general, I would rate WatchGuard Firebox around 6-7; it is a good firewall, but they lack good administration tools. We experience many problems with the performance and administration tools on the web, including several issues with VPNs.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for three years.

We had many bottlenecks before deploying WatchGuard Firebox, but when we switched to a higher version of our firewalls, the bottlenecks were solved. Currently, we have no bottlenecks around the communications with any of our sites.

The communication with WatchGuard is done through our provider, who are their partners. We have had some problems over the last three years. They have spent several hours on the phone with us, attempting to resolve all the configuration problems we encountered three years ago and following the sun to manage these issues. I would rate their service and support at about 7-8.

We switched from Palo Alto to WatchGuard Firebox because of the price. The cost solution by Palo Alto was extremely high. We switched to another firewall, but we are trying to reach another type of firewall solution, so we will probably change in the next year.

The implementation of WatchGuard Firebox took approximately two months for us. It took us two months to have an approved version in order to go to production, and approximately three months until the deployment was already completed. This was not a problem with WatchGuard Firebox.

The deployment was done by our provider, and they did almost 90% of the job, but it was our responsibility. From our side, three engineers took part in the deployment of WatchGuard Firebox. They were not primarily focused on this project, so it was a part-time delivery.

I do not see any return on investment after WatchGuard Firebox implementation in terms of cost reductions. Operational costs were about the same with Palo Alto, but with WatchGuard Firebox, we have three or four tools to do our job, which means our operational costs are probably 20 to 25% higher. We expected to reduce the amount of hours needed for operation and administration when we acquired WatchGuard Firebox.

WatchGuard Firebox was a cheaper solution in terms of price, approximately 25% cheaper than Palo Alto based on a rough order of magnitude from four years ago. FortiGate, the solutions we are looking at now, is more or less the same as WatchGuard Firebox.

We will probably use Fortinet as the next solution. FortiGate is a high-quality solution in firewalls and has been implemented in many town halls in Spain and around the world. FortiGate solves many problems that we currently have with the administration area.

I would appreciate clarification about the features of WatchGuard Firebox. My overall review rating for WatchGuard Firebox is 6.

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.