We performed a comparison between Cisco IOS Security and Meraki MX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We purchased Fortinet because of the pricing, its functionality, because it met our requirements, and the total cost of ownership over five years was quite reasonable. In the market, Fortinet is rated quite well."
"This is an easy solution to deploy."
"We were looking for the VPN feature and controlling the inflow and outflow of all the traffic within the site and across the sites. We are also using it for the VPN and VLANs."
"The tool is a nice product and easy to handle. The software's user interface is also good. You can easily implement remote access in the solution."
"Fortinet FortiGate is user-friendly and affordable."
"Fortinet FortiGate's ease of management is the most valuable feature."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the SD-WAN and their IP4 policy."
"The scalability is good in Fortinet FortiGate."
"The security is very good."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco IOS Security is posturing."
"Cisco IOS Security increases the overall security of our network, performs authentication, and provides level 15 access and privileges."
"Cisco IOS Security is very robust and works very well."
"One of the main features is that the hardware is extremely reliable."
"It is less expensive than alternative firewalls."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability. The nice thing with the bigger vendors is that they're very good at scale."
"In Pakistan, we only use Cisco because they have good local support infrastructure. Huawei and Fortinet don't offer direct support in Pakistan."
"Intrusion detection and prevention (IDS/IPS): The best feature. It can detect malware, even a virus, and warn you by email about the device that has it. When the Meraki detects that something is wrong, it automatically blocks the connection or the intrusion, delivering a graphic report with all the necessary content."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"We've had no issues with the scalability or the stability of this solution"
"The technical support people from Meraki are brilliant."
"It prevents us from being hacked and delivers information about who and where the attack came from."
"The simplicity of configuration is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"A strong, reliable solution for small companies with little or no dedicated IT department."
"You can use your web browser to do the configuration which is easier than Cisco CLI transcripts."
"Technical support is good but the response time could be faster."
"The performance and speed are aspects of the solution that could always be improved upon."
"It could use more templates for third-party site-to-site VPN setups other than FortiGate and Cisco."
"Fortinet FortiGate is not very easy to use. The navigation could be improved to make it easier to use."
"There aren't really any negative aspects to discuss."
"It would be a benefit if Fortinet would release a one-stop solution that is better integrated with other products and an automated emergency response system."
"A sandbox would be good in order to be able to inspect the emails containing spam and be able to validate the emails that contain malware, prior to delivering to the customer."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"The initial setup is complicated."
"Cisco is an expensive firewall, so the pricing can be improved."
"We have a very bad experience on the support. They take too much time requesting logs, and they are not coming directly online to resolve the issues."
"Cisco is a scalable product, but it is expensive compared to other vendors."
"Cisco IOS Security could improve by having more compatibility with other Cisco solutions."
"The pricing is the only con for this product."
"I wish it would be more like the next generation firewall technology. There should be more selection between the application and filtering."
"There's a technology called SD-WAN that we would like to see. We are unable to handle multiple connections or to automatically load balance. I would like to have a feature that enables us to automatically prepare for load balancing."
"In the next release, because the security is pretty basic, I think they could include additional security features."
"Meraki tech support staff have a lot more visibility into your network than you do, which is frustrating at times. I understand the approach is to keep the dashboard easier to understand. This will frustrate more advanced users at times."
"I need more UTM protection security features."
"Meraki MX can come across as an expensive solution."
"The whole Cisco Meraki range requires easier access for cameras. For a security center, it would be helpful to have easier access to cameras through the portal. Its licensing cost could also be better."
"Direct logging is something that can be introduced. In the absence of cloud management, the possibility of local configurations and on-premise logins becomes restricted. This limitation stands as a primary concern. When it comes to resolving issues, the inability to access login options hampers troubleshooting efforts. The stability is noteworthy; but when compared to alternative products, its stability is comparatively lower. Additionally, certain limitations are observed in terms of remote control. Price-wise, the solution stands out for its competitive and cost-effective nature compared to other alternatives. Operationally, it is user-friendly and requires minimal effort from administrators, making configuration hassle-free."
"It would be nice if the different services, including the SIEM SOC and endpoint detection and response (EDR) were integrated into one, so that I don't have to go to different vendors for different services."
"The solution's pricing should be reduced."
Cisco IOS Security is ranked 22nd in Firewalls with 47 reviews while Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 58 reviews. Cisco IOS Security is rated 8.0, while Meraki MX is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco IOS Security writes "User-friendly and excels in documentation, making it easier to resolve issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". Cisco IOS Security is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiOS, Netgate pfSense, OPNsense and Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, whereas Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and Netgate pfSense. See our Cisco IOS Security vs. Meraki MX report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
