We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and WatchGuard Firebox based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, both solutions received similar ratings in all categories.
"Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"It's user-friendly and easy to operate."
"The user interface is relatively easy. The devices are easy to deploy and figure out when you have experience with other security appliances."
"What's most important is the ease of use."
"It is useful for protecting and segregating the internal networks from the internet. Most of our customers also use the FortiGate client to connect to their offices by using the VPN client, and of course, they usually activate the antivirus, deep inspection, and intrusion prevention services. They are also using it for web filtering and implementing various policies dealing with forwardings, NAT, etc."
"The base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"The interface is very good."
"The security features are about the best that I've seen anywhere."
"I think cloud management is key. The cloud management and support are the two things that make the product great."
"We've had no issues with the scalability or the stability of this solution"
"Both the scalability and the scalability are great with Meraki MX."
"Real Auto VPN with load balancer without needing a public IP. It is simple and functional."
"The internet traffic shaping has been very valuable."
"Managed centrally over the web: You can manages all your Meraki devices in a single account."
"I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard."
"It has very good features; it's easy to use, configure, set up, and deploy."
"The throughput is great. It's perfect. We have no issues whatsoever. The management features are very powerful..."
"WatchGuard Firebox's two-factor authentication feature is particularly useful and provides an added layer of protection."
"Among the most valuable features is the ease of use — love the interface — of both the web interface and of the WatchGuard System Manager."
"The solution has a useful traffic monitor."
"The most valuable feature is the NAT-ing, the IP addresses... We can direct the traffic where it needs to go. We can control the traffic."
"The firewall aspect and the branch office VPNs are the most valuable features... We don't have any issues with it. We don't have to spend a lot of time maintaining it."
"The main reason we went with it was the security protocols. They were more robust on this device."
"The most valuable are the VPN and proxy features."
"I'm not sure if it's something that they already have or are developing something, however, we need some dedicated features for container security."
"It needs more available central management."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"I would like to see a more intuitive dashboard."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve the user interface. There should be more functionality and options through the GUI."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve the protection, it did not prevent us from being attacked. Additionally, Fortinet FortiGate could provide more features for WAF devices. I should not have to purchase two solutions, it would be a benefit to combine these features into one solution."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve to be on par with its competitors, such as Palo Alto and Sophos. They are the market leaders. Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve its capabilities. However, we are happy with Fortinet FortiGate."
"With FortiGate, the main complaint that I have heard is about the technical support."
"The IPS, the Intrusion Prevention System, can be improved."
"You cannot use switching behaviors as you see on the Meraki switch."
"It would be great if the Meraki devices let us see, in real time, the internet demand on a single device."
"The current lead time is longer for Meraki MX, and it needs to be improved."
"In general, the SD-WAN feature needs to be improved. The load sharing and load balancing of the traffic should be improved. I have had some problems with these features in the past."
"The product doesn't support route summarization and BGP dynamic routing protocol."
"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."
"The security is not as strong as it could be"
"The only downside is that it is missing an API, that you can use to easily collect information from it."
"This solution needs the option to add an external hard drive."
"It would be wonderful if the WatchGuard team develops nice products for threat intelligence."
"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."
"What could use some significant improvement in WatchGuard Firebox would be its interface and policy management. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of WatchGuard Firebox is the ability to modify an existing policy instead of having to recreate a policy when changes are necessary. At the moment, there's no possibility to modify the policy. You have to delete the policy and recreate it."
"Cloud-based central administration of all devices from one point would be nice"
"The VPN aspect of the WatchGuard Firebox is an area that could potentially benefit from improvement. We encountered difficulties while attempting to integrate Windows 11 laptops into the system, which resulted in unreliable connections. After some research, we discovered that this was primarily due to compatibility issues with Windows 11 and required a patch. However, it was still a challenge as it seemed that even when we tried to keep the laptops on Windows 10, they still exhibited the same issues as Windows 11 machines. Despite WatchGuard attributing the problem to Microsoft, we were eventually able to find a solution and all the machines are now functioning seamlessly."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say their web blocker feature. It is still quite a confusing setup, especially when you want to filter out a particular category for granularity. For example, you do not want to filter Facebook but you do want to filter Facebook games only. It can be done, but the process to do it is very confusing."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 59 reviews while WatchGuard Firebox is ranked 3rd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 79 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while WatchGuard Firebox 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 WatchGuard Firebox writes "Offers a streamlined deployment, intuitive interface and robust security features". Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and Check Point NGFW, whereas WatchGuard Firebox is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, OPNsense, SonicWall TZ and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Meraki MX vs. WatchGuard Firebox report.
See our list of best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
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.