My primary use case for WatchGuard Firebox has been network security management and secure connectivity for client environments. On a day-to-day basis, I typically use it for configuring and managing firewall policies, monitoring network traffic, handling VPN setups such as site-to-site VPN and remote access VPNs, and troubleshooting connectivity or access-related issues. I have also worked on tasks such as NAT configuration, web filtering, user access control, security policies updates, log monitoring, and responding to security alerts. In MSP environments, ensuring secure remote connectivity and maintaining stable network performance for users has been a major part of my daily responsibilities.

Some of the best features of WatchGuard Firebox in my experience are its ease of management, strong VPN capabilities, and integrated security services. What stands out the most is how it combines multiple security functions into a single platform, which makes it very practical in MSP and multi-client environments. I particularly like site-to-site VPN and remote access VPNs because they are reliable and relatively straightforward to configure and troubleshoot, along with UTM features such as intrusion prevention, gateway antivirus, web blocker, and application control.

WatchGuard Firebox has had a positive impact mainly by improving network security, reliability, and visibility across client environments. One of the biggest improvements I noticed was more secure and stable remote connectivity through VPNs, especially for users working remotely or connecting between branch offices.

WatchGuard Firebox is a strong and reliable platform overall, but there are a few areas where improvements could make the experience even better. One area is the user interface and navigation in some management tools. While the platform is powerful, certain configurations and troubleshooting workflows can feel less intuitive compared to some newer cloud-native firewall platforms. Another point is reporting and log analysis. Although the logging features are very useful, deeper analytics and more customizable reporting dashboards would make security monitoring much more effective. Firmware upgrades and policy synchronization can sometimes require careful planning to avoid security interruptions. Overall, the core security and VPN functionality are very solid, but improving usability, reporting, and automation would make the platform even stronger.

One area that could be improved is the learning curve for new administrators. While experienced engineers can work with the platform effectively, some advanced networking and security configurations can be a bit complex for junior technicians. More guided configuration workflows, smarter recommendations, and simplified troubleshooting tools would make onboarding easier. Another improvement would be more flexible reporting customization for executive-level and client-facing reports.

I have been working in the IT field for more than seven years.

WatchGuard Firebox has been a stable and reliable solution in my experience, especially in SMB and MSP environments. Most deployments I have worked with run continuously with very few unexpected outages or performance issues. Once properly configured, the platform handles VPN connectivity, traffic inspection, and security services constantly, even in multi-site environments with remote users. From an operational perspective, firewall firmware updates and maintenance generally worked well when planned correctly, although updates and security patches need to be monitored carefully and tested in the production environment like any firewall platform. Overall, I would describe WatchGuard Firebox as a dependable platform with strong uptime, good performance, and reliable security functionality.

WatchGuard Firebox scales very well in my experience, especially for small to mid-sized businesses, distributed environments, and growing organizations. One of its strengths is that the product line covers a wide range of deployment sizes, from small branch offices and remote users to larger enterprises and multi-site environments. Organizations can start with smaller, tabletop appliances and later move to higher-performance rack-mount or virtual or cloud firewall solutions as their requirements grow. The new Firebox models also support faster multi-gig interfaces, improved throughput, and larger VPN capabilities, which help organizations expand without immediately needing major infrastructure changes. From an operational standpoint, I found the scalability practical because the management experience remains fairly consistent across different appliance sizes and deployment types, whether on-premises, virtual, or hybrid cloud. Overall, WatchGuard Firebox offers strong scalability for SMBs, MSPs, branch offices, and hybrid environments while keeping deployment and management relatively straightforward.

My experience with WatchGuard customer support has generally been good and responsive, especially for the SMB and MSP-focused environment. Most of the time, support engineers are knowledgeable and able to assist effectively with firewall configuration issues, VPN troubleshooting, firmware updates, and security-related concerns. Overall, I would describe the support experience as reliable and solid for day-to-day operational needs with good technical resources and a strong focus on MSP and SMB customers.

In different environments I have worked with other firewalls and security platforms such as Sophos, Fortinet, Cisco, and SonicWall before or alongside WatchGuard Firebox. The reasons for switching or choosing WatchGuard often depend on the client's business requirements, budget, ease of management, and desired security features. In several SMB and MSP environments, WatchGuard was selected because it provided a strong balance between security, VPN functionality, and centralized management and overall cost-effectiveness compared to some other solutions. Clients found WatchGuard relatively straightforward to deploy and manage, especially for branch offices and distributed environments. In some cases, organizations moved from older firewall solutions because they needed better visibility, stronger security features, easier remote management, or improved support for remote work and cloud-connected environments. Overall, the switch was usually driven by the need for more manageable, scalable, and security-focused solutions while keeping operational costs reasonable.

In the environment I worked with, WatchGuard Firebox was typically acquired through authorized WatchGuard partners or MSP procurement channels rather than through the AWS Marketplace. Most deployments involved physical or virtual Firebox appliances purchased along with the licenses and security subscriptions, depending on the client's requirements. The environments were then integrated with the existing on-premises and cloud infrastructure, such as Microsoft 365 and Azure services.

I have seen a positive return on investment from the WatchGuard Firebox deployment overall, mainly through reduced downtime, lower operational overhead, and improved security management. One measurable improvement was the reduction in the time spent troubleshooting network and VPN-related issues because of centralized monitoring, logging, and easier policy management. Issues could often be identified and resolved much faster. In some environments, this noticeably reduced recurring support tickets related to connectivity and access problems. From a security standpoint, preventing even a single major security incident or prolonged outage can represent significant cost savings. In MSP environments, centralized cloud management also improved technician efficiency because multiple clients' firewalls could be monitored and maintained from one interface. This allowed teams to manage more environments efficiently without proportionally increasing staffing requirements. While exact ROI numbers varied by client size and infrastructure, the common benefits were time savings, fewer support escalations, reduced downtime, and more efficient security management overall.

My experience with WatchGuard Firebox pricing and licensing has generally been positive, especially for small to mid-sized businesses and MSP environments. The initial setup cost is usually reasonable compared to some other enterprise firewall solutions. From a deployment perspective, setup costs are manageable because the appliances are relatively straightforward to configure and deploy, especially for standard branch office or SMB environments. One thing to keep in mind is that licensing and subscription renewals can become more expensive as advanced security services are added or when managing larger environments with multiple appliances. Also, some advanced reporting and cloud management features may require higher-tier licensing. Overall, I found the pricing to feature ratio to be good, particularly for organizations looking for strong security, VPN functionality, and centralized management without the significantly higher cost often associated with large enterprise firewall platforms.

In several deployments, other firewall solutions have been evaluated alongside WatchGuard Firebox. Depending on the client's size, technical requirements, and budget, some of the commonly evaluated alternatives included Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, XGS, Cisco Meraki, SonicWall, and Palo Alto Networks. Each platform had its strengths. For example, Fortinet was often considered for strong performance and advanced security features, Cisco Meraki for simplified cloud management, Sophos for endpoint integration, and Palo Alto for enterprise-grade security capabilities. WatchGuard was often selected because it provides a good balance of security features, VPN reliability, centralized management, ease of deployment, and cost-effectiveness, especially for SMB and MSP environments. The final decision usually came down to the organization's budget, scalability requirements, management preference, and overall operational simplicity.

I focus not only on the configuration and maintaining the firewall but also on improving the overall security posture and reliability for users. In MSP environments, I have often worked proactively by reviewing firewall rules, monitoring logs for unusual activity, validating VPN performance, and ensuring secure remote access for employees.

One thing that comes up repeatedly in day-to-day operations is the need for even more streamlined, centralized management and automation, especially in MSP environments where multiple clients' firewalls are managed centrally. For example, having more advanced bulk policy deployment, easier template management, and stronger automation for repetitive administrative tasks would save a lot of operational time. Better integration with third-party monitoring and ticketing tool platforms would also help improve incident response workflows. Overall, the platform is very reliable from the security and connectivity standpoint, but enhancements around automation, large-scale management, and advanced diagnostics would make daily administration even more efficient.

WatchGuard Firebox simplifies several aspects of daily IT and security operations, especially in MSP and multi-site environments. One major benefit is centralized security management. Instead of managing separate tools for firewalling, VPNs, web filtering, and intrusion prevention, many of these functions are available with a single platform. This reduces administrative overhead and makes troubleshooting much faster. From a business perspective, the platform also simplifies compliance and security monitoring by providing centralized logs, reporting, and visibility into the network, helping IT teams maintain better control over the environment.

The features I find most valuable for maintaining network security are the layered security services and centralized visibility that WatchGuard Firebox provides. One of the most important features is intrusion prevention services because it helps detect and block malicious traffic and known attack patterns before they impact the network. Combined with the gateway antivirus and reputation-based filtering, it adds strong protections against malware and suspicious activity. Real-time monitoring, logging, and reporting are also extremely useful because they provide visibility into network activity and help quickly identify security threats, unusual traffic behavior, or policy violations. Overall, I value the platform because it combines multiple layers of security, centralized management, and strong network performance into a single solution, making it easier to maintain both protection and operations.

The transition to faster ports on WatchGuard Firewalls helps maintain productivity during peak usage times by improving overall network throughput, reducing congestion, and supporting higher volumes of simultaneous traffic without performance degradation. In practical terms, this is especially important in environments with heavy VPN usage, cloud applications such as Microsoft 365, VoIP traffic, video conferencing, file transfers, and multi-branch office connections. Faster interfaces allow the firewall to process larger amounts of encrypted and inspected traffic more efficiently, which helps maintain stable performance for users. For example, during peak business hours when many remote employees are connected to VPNs while also accessing cloud services and participating in Teams or Zoom meetings, higher speed ports help reduce latency and bottlenecks. This results in smoother connectivity, better application responsiveness, and fewer interruptions. From an operational perspective, better throughput and reduced congestion mean fewer performance-related support issues, improved user experience, and more reliable business continuity during higher demand periods.

One situation that stands out is when a client was experiencing intermittent connectivity issues between their main office and a remote branch connected through a site-to-site VPN on WatchGuard Firebox devices. I investigated the issue by reviewing the VPN tunnel status, firewall logs, and traffic monitor within Firebox System Manager. After troubleshooting, I identified that the issue was related to mismatched phase two VPN settings and unstable ISP connectivity, causing tunnel drops. I updated the VPN configuration, adjusted the keep-alive and timeout settings, and coordinated with the ISP team to stabilize the connection. After the change, the VPN tunnel remained stable, and the users who were facing the issue resolved their problems.

One of the most noticeable improvements has been the reduction in VPN-related downtime and faster issue resolution. After properly configuring and monitoring the WatchGuard Firebox environment, remote users experienced much more stable connectivity, which reduced support tickets related to access and connectivity problems.

In my environment, I have worked with WatchGuard Firebox primarily deployed in on-premises and hybrid setups. Typically, the physical Firebox appliances are installed on the premises at client offices or branch locations to manage perimeter security, VPN connectivity, and web filtering. I also use WatchGuard Cloud for centralized monitoring, reporting, and management across multiple clients, especially in MSP environments. This hybrid approach works well because it provides strong on-site network security while still supporting secure access to cloud-based services and remote users.

Always validate the configuration thoroughly and closely monitor the logs and alerts, especially during and after the setup. Pre-planning the network architecture and ensuring consistency in network documentation can prevent many common issues. Education and training can be very helpful as well. Reading up on the product's capabilities and best practices, regularly updated documentation, and taking advantage of online courses or certifications if available can equip users with valuable insights and information to maximize their knowledge of the platform. I would rate this product an eight out of ten.

I use WatchGuard Firebox mainly for perimeter security, secure remote access, and traffic inspection in our organization.

I use WatchGuard Firebox to control inbound and outbound traffic. For example, we block suspicious IPs, restrict risk applications, and manage VPN access for remote employees. This is very helpful for our company.

WatchGuard Firebox has strong firewalls, intrusion prevention, SSL inspection for encrypted traffic, and an easy-to-use management interface with reliable VPNs.

Regarding SSL inspection for encrypted traffic, almost all traffic is encrypted today, and attackers use that to hide malware or malicious downloads. Without SSL inspection, you are basically blind. After enabling it, we are able to detect risk downloads and suspicious websites that would otherwise pass unnoticed. SSL inspection has a big impact because most threats today are hidden in encrypted traffic.

WatchGuard Firebox has improved visibility and control over the network traffic and reduced unauthorized access attempts. It is helpful in our organization and very impactful for using and giving services to clients. We see fewer suspicious connections reaching internal systems and have better control over user internet access. It is a very helpful tool for us, and our employees are also using it in the best and most protected way.

Reporting and advanced threat analytics can be improved in WatchGuard Firebox.

Performance tuning is required when multiple features such as SSL inspection and IPS are enabled together.

On the positive side, WatchGuard Firebox is reliable for day-to-day network security, firewalling, IPS, VPN, and even SSL inspection in our environment. It gives good visibility and control over the traffic, and the UI makes it easy to manage policies and respond quickly when something comes up. Where it loses a couple of points, advanced analytics and reporting are not as deep as some higher-end firewalls. The threat intelligence and detection depth is decent, but not top-tier. When you enable multiple features such as IPS plus SSL inspection together, performance tuning becomes important. Overall, it is a strong and practical solution.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for around two to three years.

WatchGuard Firebox is stable in our experience.

WatchGuard Firebox scales well depending on the model used.

Support is very responsive and very helpful.

Before moving to WatchGuard Firebox, we were using mixed basic firewall setups, mainly Sophos XG Firewall in our environment and some older edge devices in another. The main reason we decided to switch was around usability and consistency. With the earlier setup, policy management was complex and time-consuming. Troubleshooting during an incident took longer. Performance dropped when multiple security features were enabled.

When I evaluated WatchGuard Firebox, a few things stood out. The interface was much simpler, so day-to-day management became easier. There was better balancing between security features and performance. VPN setup and management were more straightforward. Overall, there was less operational overhead for the team. It was not that the previous solution was bad, but for our use case, we needed something that was easier to manage without compromising core security, especially in a small team environment. The switch was more about practical efficiency and smoother operation, not just features.

Overall the setup was quite straightforward, but as with any firewall, proper planning makes a big difference. With WatchGuard Firebox, the initial setup is actually simple. The basic setup, such as interface setup for WAN and LAN and bringing the device online, does not take much time. The web UI setup wizard helps tremendously, especially if you have worked with a firewall before. Licensing was also smooth in our case. Once the device is activated, you just apply the subscription license for features such as IPS and gateway, AV, and SSL inspection. There were no major issues there.

Where things need more attention is the configuration: defining proper firewall policies, setting up VPN for remote users, tuning IPS, and enabling SSL inspection carefully. For example, when we enabled SSL inspection, we had to fine-tune it to avoid breaking certain applications. That is something you usually adjust based on your environment. The basic setup is easy and quick, while advanced configuration requires some tuning and experience. Overall, we did not face major challenges, just the usual tuning expected with any network security devices.

We obtained WatchGuard Firebox through a local partner or reseller, which is the more common approach for hardware firewalls. Since WatchGuard Firebox is typically deployed as a physical appliance at the network edge, it usually comes through an authorized seller or channel partner, not direct vendor procurement. In our case, the partner also helped with the initial setup and licensing, which made deployment smooth.

The ROI has been achieved mainly through reducing network-based incidents and better security control.

Pricing is reasonable compared to other enterprise firewalls, and setup is straightforward.

We evaluated Fortinet and Sophos before selecting WatchGuard Firebox.

Do not rely on default policies. Proper tuning of the firewall rules and security features is very important. WatchGuard Firebox is a practical and reliable solution, especially for organizations that need strong security without too much complexity. I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.

We use it for data loss prevention, firewall, and malware protection.

WatchGuard Firebox has excellent documentation. The setup and documentation are the best features. WatchGuard Firebox helps simplify aspects of the job for my clients. The features of WatchGuard Firebox are most valuable for maintaining network security.

Several areas of WatchGuard Firebox have room for improvement, including AI, UI, pricing, support, and implementation integration.

I have six months of experience with WatchGuard Firebox.

I rate the stability for WatchGuard Firebox highly.

WatchGuard Firebox handles scalability well.

WatchGuard Firebox does help reduce bottlenecks. The reduction in system bottlenecks is significant. When comparing WatchGuard Firebox with other vendors such as Fortinet, SonicWall, Palo Alto, and Sophos, WatchGuard Firebox performs competitively.

The deployment of WatchGuard Firebox is straightforward with no significant challenges.

WatchGuard Firebox is used in my organization for detection and response and firewall functionalities.

The best features of WatchGuard Firebox are the technical flexibility the product delivers to us.

The most valuable features of WatchGuard Firebox for maintaining our network security include the application control that is integrated in the firewalls.

The solution simplifies aspects of my job by providing cloud management that greatly simplifies our ease of onboarding new engineers and getting them into the technology that is provided. This greatly simplifies our technical difficulties within our tech stack.

For us as an MSP, we experience a reduction in system bottlenecks after implementing WatchGuard Firebox, which translates into a more billable engineer who can do more work in the same time period.

I estimate that it saves me between 10 and 15% of my workload.

The main area for improvement in WatchGuard Firebox is exposing more of the technical configuration in the cloud management, as it would take away the need to do local management on those devices.

The configuration through the cloud is indeed limited, or too limited for some special configurations, and that would be a quick win for us if the settings would be available in the cloud.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for about five years.

I would rate the stability of WatchGuard Firebox a nine, as we barely have any issues.

WatchGuard Firebox is a very scalable solution, so the size of clients we try to approach are well within the specs of options that WatchGuard Firebox provides.

I would rate scalability for us a nine.

I find WatchGuard Firebox to be cost-effective. The product you get for the price you pay seems about right to me and to our company.

I would rate the pricing of WatchGuard Firebox a six.

In my opinion, WatchGuard Firebox is more targeted towards the small and medium business branch of customers, where the security is a notch above small and medium-sized businesses. Comparing to Fortinet, WatchGuard Firebox is at least less prone to security exploits.

At least here in Belgium, the delivery times for new hardware are noteworthy.

We deploy WatchGuard Firebox with about 85% on-premises and 15% cloud firewalls.

In my organization, about 10 specialists work with WatchGuard Firebox.

Our clients are mainly small-medium businesses, comprising multiple clients.

The solution requires easier maintenance because all the solution is combined into a cloud portal. If there is any maintenance, updates, or issues, we can get most of the work done through the cloud portal.

We use the spam blocking capabilities as a secondary source of spam analysis; we have a primary solution that filters the bulk. It works and it does the filtering fine, but it is not our main spam solution.

Most of our customer base, or 95%, is easily integrated with the solution that WatchGuard Firebox provides, either through some links that we have to connect or just by default connecting to their security stack.

If others are in the same size as our customers, I would recommend WatchGuard Firebox without hesitation.

I give this review an overall rating of eight.

WatchGuard Firebox is a firewall and security product.

WatchGuard Firebox provides benefits in terms of security, time saving, resource saving, and cost savings. The price-to-quality ratio is reasonable.

There is room for improvement in WatchGuard Firebox regarding customization and AI functionality. Pricing is another area that could be addressed in future releases.

I have been working with WatchGuard firewalls for approximately 20 years.

My overall experience with WatchGuard's technical support is good. They are responsive, and I would rate their support as a 9 out of 10.

The deployment process for WatchGuard Firebox is straightforward. Implementation requires approximately half a day, and only one person from my side is needed to complete the process.

WatchGuard Firebox is beneficial in terms of finance and provides return on investment through cost reductions.

I work with other vendors aside from WatchGuard depending on customer needs. Sophos is an alternative vendor I use on rare occasions compared to WatchGuard.

I work with WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention in addition to WatchGuard Firebox. My overall experience with software in the IT sphere is quite extensive. I am in a partnership with WatchGuard.

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.