We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sophos, Cisco, WatchGuard and others in Unified Threat Management (UTM)."To me, the analytics feature is one of the most valuable in Meraki MX. I also find that it has good usability as it's cloud-based. Another valuable feature of Meraki MX is that it's simple to use and it's user-friendly."
"Simple to manage."
"The product is quite secure, easy to manage, and well-connected with other devices."
"A strong, reliable solution for small companies with little or no dedicated IT department."
"Since it has an integrated dashboard for all the products, customers can get complete network analytics regarding what the user is doing, monitoring, and observing."
"I like the automatic firmware updates. We use the Active Directory to authenticate VPN users."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard."
"The graphic user interface of Palo Alto is good and it's easy to configure."
"My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway."
"It is stable and pretty much scalable."
"The most valuable feature for us is the VPN."
"WildFire has been instrumental in blocking a number of new threats, before common desktop anti-virus tools were able to detect them."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is its ability to adapt to environments and its robustness."
"A good tool for file scanning and email threat detection, especially when it comes to attachments and communications."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"Right now, you can postpone the update but eventually, if you don't do the update, it will install the updates automatically for you and that's something that is not working for me."
"As far as what needs to be improved — nothing really comes to mind. It does what we need it to do."
"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."
"The client-side VPN is weak. The product could be improved with deployment templates."
"MX can only be managed via a web interface, but I'm accustomed to using a CLI or a graphical interface. I would also like to see more reporting features. It doesn't provide enough information for me to know precisely about some clients."
"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."
"The security is not as strong as it could be"
"You can only have one tunnel in the whole infrastructure — one tunnel with one device."
"The automation and responsiveness need improvement."
"The cost of this solution could still be improved, in particular, giving product discounts for charitable causes."
"They provide a medium level of technical support."
"There are certain changes that I was expecting in the previous version, and I hope that they are soon fixed. All of the problems that I have faced so far have been resolved."
"Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that."
"Our main concern is that everything has to be synced with the WildFire Cloud and has to be checked through the subscription."
"In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file."
"The system performance degrades after the solution has been deployed for some time. The data that it gives us becomes a little bit slow. When you try to get some data for troubleshooting, it seems like it's working hard to extract that data."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 58 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Meraki MX is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG and SonicWall TZ, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection and Fortinet FortiSandbox.
We monitor all Unified Threat Management (UTM) 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.