The WatchGuard Firebox is excellent for ensuring the security of remote workers, making it ideal for organizations with distributed teams or remote workforce setups.

It manages network traffic, serving as a fundamental component of the firewall.

WatchGuard excels in reporting and monitoring capabilities, offering comprehensive options for filtering and querying data. Their centralized console simplifies management for organizations with multiple Fireboxes. Instead of logging into each firewall individually, administrators can access and monitor their entire firewall infrastructure from a single IP address.

Certain features stand out as particularly effective for threat prevention, such as XDR (Extended Detection and Response) and MDR (Managed Detection and Response). These functionalities, although not inherent to Firebox, can be integrated seamlessly for existing WatchGuard customers. This integration offers significant benefits, as it streamlines security processes and eliminates redundancy that often occurs when using multiple security tools from different vendors.

The distribution and channel strategy, particularly in regions like Pakistan and Afghanistan, may hinder their visibility and adoption. Due to their lack of investment in marketing, channel development, and certifications, WatchGuard faces challenges in gaining visibility and market share, especially in regions like Pakistan. Unlike competitors such as Cisco and Fortinet, who offer extensive training and certifications for their partners, WatchGuard's limited focus in this area hinders their ability to attract technical talent and expand their customer base. To address this issue and improve its presence in the market, WatchGuard could consider offering free or low-cost certification programs to educate potential partners and customers on their technology. By empowering individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge, WatchGuard can create a network of brand ambassadors who can advocate for their solutions and drive adoption.

WatchGuard's offerings are invaluable and I believe they provide superior security solutions compared to Barracuda and Juniper. WatchGuard's products are versatile and suitable for a wide range of organizations from small to large, yet they may not be fully recognized in the enterprise sector due to messaging and marketing strategies that focus on small to medium-sized environments.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The product's simplicity and user-friendly interface require minimal assistance during configuration and deployment. Deployment time varies from customer to customer. For less complex use cases, the firewall can be deployed in just one day.

WatchGuard offers competitive pricing with attractive margins, benefiting both the company and its partners.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We use the solution to protect our systems. We also use it for real-time detection.

The tool provides automated responses. It has a lot of features.

The interface is not the best. I do not like it. The reports must also be improved.

I am currently using the solution.

I have contacted the support team a couple of times. They solve our problems in a few hours.

The product is easy to install and manage. It is connected to our SOC.

The solution is cheap. I am satisfied with the price.

Our partners have asked us to try using FortiEDR. I don't know if we will change because we are quite happy with WatchGuard.

Our partners integrated the solution with our SOC. We have not used the threat prioritization features. We can install the program. It is only used while developing applications. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the product for added security layers, allowing us to control and manage our network traffic effectively.

The product's most valuable feature is DNS filtering, which blocks users from accessing unwanted websites.

The product's technical support services need improvement.

We have been using WatchGuard Firebox for a few years.

We never encountered stability issues. The system never went offline.

I rate the platform’s stability an eight out of ten.

The technical support team takes time to respond.

We did use a different solution previously. We switched to WatchGuard Firebox because it offered added security features.

While your supplier assisted with most of the setup, it still took some time to become accustomed to using the product effectively. The installation process spanned about two days, with the first day focused on physical installation and the second day dedicated to configurations. Beforehand, your provider inquired about your existing services, such as multiple Internet providers and virtual networks, to ensure seamless integration with the WatchGuard Firebox.

We took help from a third-party consultant for product implementation. Additionally, there were four staff members from our organization involved in the process.

As per my knowledge, the product is more affordable than alternatives like Barracuda, which was reported to be way more expensive. However, I wasn't involved in the detailed discussions about these aspects, so I can't provide more in-depth insights. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

Before choosing WatchGuard Firebox, we evaluated other options. Some of the alternatives we considered included Norton and Barracuda. However, Barracuda was ultimately deemed to be out of our price range. Norton was also considered but not chosen, partly due to pricing concerns. Ultimately, a partner highly recommended WatchGuard, which influenced our decision to select it as our security solution.

In our environment, we've deployed the WatchGuard Firebox primarily to secure remote access for users. Previously, we relied on remote desktops, but due to security concerns, we transitioned everything to VPN connections facilitated by the Firebox.

Initially, the ease of management and configuration of the Firebox for administrators was around four. However, as we became more familiar with the technical details and how to use it, that rating increased to an eight.

Firebox operates effectively in the background, blocking potential threats without a need for constant monitoring. It allows us to focus on other tasks knowing that our network is protected. As for ROI, it's challenging to provide specific metrics without detailed analysis, but overall, the enhanced security by the Firebox justifies the investment.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did it all myself.

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

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

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

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The solution is used to protect, detect, and respond.

It is a lightweight product. The interface is very good.

The website must provide more information on the product. The tool must be promoted more.

I have been working with the product for almost one year.

The tool is stable. It is easy to maintain it.

Our customers are small, medium, and large organizations.

It is easy to deploy the product.

The price is comparable.

We recommend the solution to our customers. We are resellers. We provide technical support to our customers. Overall, I rate the solution a nine and a half out of ten.

Security use cases for on-premises deployment involve safeguarding my customer's internet connections to ensure the safety of their digital assets.

I appreciate the intuitive design of the dashboard, which is both clear and self-explanatory. Additionally, the ongoing efforts to update the product and the valuable feedback received from technical support hold significant importance for me. Centralization is a crucial feature for me as it allows me to have all sites and customers accessible under a single click, not limited to just one.

I believe there is room for improvement in policies, with the potential to enhance the margins further.

I have been familiar with WatchGuard products for over fifteen years.

In terms of stability, I haven't encountered any significant issues, so I would rate it a solid ten out of ten.

It is very scalable, I would rate it eight out of ten. The majority of my clients are businesses with a maximum of up to twenty-five users.

If I encounter any challenges, I promptly create a support ticket with WatchGuard. Typically, within less than twelve hours, I receive a response from a technical expert addressing the issue. In general, problems are resolved in less than forty-eight hours. I am highly satisfied with this aspect.

I experimented with Fortinet and SonicWall years ago, and the experience was not particularly successful. Consequently, I transitioned to WatchGuard due to my longstanding involvement in the project spanning almost two decades. The interface has consistently seemed logically structured to me. In comparison to other solutions where I often find myself needing to look up and search again, the technical aspects may be similar, but the installation, control, updates, management, and monitoring processes are significantly more straightforward for me with WatchGuard than with its competitors.

The installation process was relatively straightforward for me.

The deployment time varies depending on the site and the assistance available. For clients without an on-premise systems administrator, which is usually me, the process is quicker. However, for clients with their own IT systems administrator, deployment tends to take a bit longer due to the explanations and training required. The duration can range from a few hours to half a day.

Over the years, the costs have increased, especially since I cater to very small businesses. While they comprehend the necessity of investing in network protection, these features have become relatively expensive. I would rate it six out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

The tool's most valuable feature is the dashboard.

The solution needs to improve its accessibility.

I have been working with the solution for four months.

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten.

My company has three users for WatchGuard Firebox.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox a five out of ten.

My company uses WatchGuard Firebox for the data centers that work in our office. My company has websites and web applications, because of which we use WatchGuard Firebox for system security.

In WatchGuard Firebox, the antivirus and malware detection systems are areas with shortcomings that require improvement since they are the most important elements of a cybersecurity tool.

In the future releases of WatchGuard Firebox, I want to see more frequent updates.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for two years. I am an end-user of WatchGuard Firebox.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a one out of ten.

It is not a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a three out of ten. The scalability structure of the product does not work properly. There are some downtimes in the solution for which we don't get any notifications. In our company, we don't worry whenever there is an upgrade for the solution.

In my company, we are full-time users of WatchGuard Firebox, and we have applications that are not just used inside our office but publicly on the internet. My company faces many cyberattacks from Russia and China, which is really bad.

My company does not plan to increase the use of the solution.

When trying to contact the product's technical support team, it turns out to be a slow process.

I rate the technical support a three out of ten.

I rate the initial setup phase of the tool a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution's deployment process takes just a few hours to be completed.

For the deployment process, you first connect to a serial cable. WatchGuard has management software that you need to install on a computer to manage the firewall software. You need to connect the firewall serial cables to your computers. In my company, we manage just one software for upgrades and deployments.

One person is enough to take care of the product's deployment process.

WatchGuard Firebox is a cheap solution.

The systems from WatchGuard are not properly working since I have seen that my company faces exploits in security when using WatchGuard Firebox.

If you just plan to use WatchGuard Firebox in your office and not publicly, then it is okay to purchase it. With WatchGuard Firebox, you can manage your users and permissions while also taking care of the basic setup phase in your office. For systems open on the internet, you can use solutions bigger than WatchGuard Firebox that can provide you with more professional services.

Since the tool's performance is not good, I rate the overall tool a two out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

I have been using this solution since 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I would describe primary use cases as a solid and cost-effective solution, especially when compared to other comparable solutions like Fortinet or different Cisco firewall suppliers and network security providers. However, I must say that it's not so intuitive to install, maintain, and configure. Nevertheless, it remains a solid and cost-effective solution.

We have seen it effectively stop some network security threats. It provides cost-effective protection and is easier to set up compared to other solutions. With other providers, it sometimes takes four to six or even eighteen weeks to deploy or receive the equipment. With WatchGuard, we have solutions that can be quickly deployed.

The most valuable feature, in my opinion, is the dimension logging platform and the network traffic filtering. The VPN feature is also very useful and valuable. Additionally, the remote site connection and VLANs are important.

One area of improvement is the deployment process; it is not intuitive.

The centralized administration and management, as well as the cloud-based interface, specifically the user interface (UI), menus, and module configurations. The administrative UI/UX could be significantly improved.

Compared to other solutions, I would say it's not a complete solution in certain settings. The centralized administration and XDR capabilities need improvement. One aspect that many firewall and network security manufacturers fail to understand or integrate well is the endpoint, XDR, or EDR solutions. For example, Cisco has its own endpoint solution, which is not very good, and other manufacturers like Check Point or Palo Alto have their own EDR solutions. The primary issue is that they haven't effectively integrated these solutions with other manufacturers to create a more comprehensive and cohesive offering. It's important to have a solution that integrates anti-malware and antivirus XDR features. In terms of mobile device management, that's a feature I haven't seen.

I've been using it with some of my clients for about three to five years, depending on different situations. One of them is not selling or reselling it, and another one is in settings where clients decided to switch from our supplier and buy WatchGuard.

We normally use Total Protection.

I would rate the stability of WatchGuard a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of WatchGuard a seven out of ten.

There is an area of improvement in customer service and support.

The initial setup is straightforward, but there is room for improvement. It's generally straightforward, but there are areas that can be enhanced.

There is an ROI for some time. However, after the first year, it becomes less straightforward to see a return on investment when equipment needs to be changed or licenses need to be renewed.

The price is very good, but the follow-up on the sales channels, especially the local ones, is not so good. Some MSSPs or suppliers do a better job than the brand's direct channel administration.

My advice would be to rely on a reliable partner who understands your operations and has experience in deploying and scaling WatchGuard.

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