Cisco Meraki MX Firewalls is a combined UTM and Software-Defined WAN solution. Meraki is managed via the cloud, and provides core firewall services, including site-to-site VPN, plus network monitoring.
$595
per appliance
Cisco Meraki vMX
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
Cisco's Meraki Virtual MX (vMX) is a virtual instance of a Meraki security & SD-WAN appliance, dedicated specifically to providing the simple configuration benefits of site-to-site Auto VPN for customers running or migrating IT services to an Amazon Web Services or Microsoft Azure Virtual Private Cloud (VPC).
It is easier to implement and affordable. If you like Cisco products and you believe in their ecosystem and future, you will not be wrong selecting Cisco Meraki MX or Viptela from their portfolio.
I have used Sonicwall and Meraki, and they are very similar and functional, but they go about it in different ways. Meraki is a little more user-friendly with less of a learning curve, but it comes at a little steeper price. I do like the online dashboard of Meraki better, …
Meraki is more entailed towards larger businesses and allow much quicker support remediation. Meraki does have a yearly license, whereas UniFi does not. UniFi is really nice and I would use it in smaller single SOHO applications, but wouldn't use it for larger organizations …
When comparing the Cisco Meraki line to other products it became nearly an incomparable argument. While Fortinet and SonicWall were very comparable to the Meraki MX series, there were just too many tangible and intangible factors that led to us choosing Meraki. The biggest …
The VMware SD wan does give some better WAN metrics, but the interface is super clunky and doesn’t support a full stack. If Meraki could give some more QoE link metrics, it would be perfect.
Cisco Meraki vMX is great for small to medium businesses. It is easy to use with little out-of-the-box configuration. There is an easier learning curve on the Cisco Meraki vMX than on the SonicWall devices. We went with the Cisco Meraki vMX because we had the physical …
Meraki vMX is the most simple and intuitive platform to implement. It does though miss some security features that you get in Checkpoint CloudGuard og Palo Alto Next Generation firewalls.
The Meraki MX lineup is well suited for organizations that need centralized management of multiple locations, as it allows for both quick deployment and simple/easy remote administration all from a single pane of glass. It also works very well for providing VPN access for remote workers and helps monitor end-device uptime. It does, however, fall a bit short in its firewall's customization, compared to traditional appliances (like our WatchGuard Firebox), so perhaps less suited for organizations that need more customization, as the Meraki MX lineup is primarily designed for simplicity and straightforward cloud-based management.
I think for us in our deployment model where it spoke to the hub, it certainly makes ideal sense. I would probably say with anyone that's signed in Azure or a cloud platform, obviously VMX appliance may not be suited. Anyone on Old Legacy MPLS may struggle to see a purpose for SD-WAN overlay of the top. But I think if you really want to introduce network communications that are low cost effective, solid in terms of availability and performance, a Meraki sdwan solution with the VMX appliance in the cloud is ideal.
The Cisco Meraki MX series is phenomenal at allowing us to remotely manage networks. So the devices usually act as the brain behind our client's networks, which makes it really, really easy for our team to take a look at what's going on in those client network environments, resolve any issues, and make sure that our client's networks are staying secure.
Layer seven firewall rules. Just making them more granular. We've been in meetings with Cisco SES where I've said feature requests many times and that's one of the big ones where it's just a little cumbersome to implement layer seven rules right now.
Just making them more granular. We've been in meetings with Cisco SES where I've said feature requests many times and that's one of the big ones where it's just a little cumbersome to implement layer seven rules right now.
The simplicity and ease of use for the Meraki Dashboard make it an easy choice for our organization to renew our Meraki Enterprise Agreement. We will likely continue using the Meraki MC67-C, MX450, and other MX models in their catalog until we shift away from Meraki completely
Some features simply aren't there, but the ones that are there are pretty easy to use. Sometimes it is easy to get lost when trying to find the specific device you want to work on, but that's mostly due to how rarely we have to go into the interface.
Meraki MX devices support high availability (HA) configurations, which ensures minimal downtime if one device goes offline. This feature has helped us maintain a stable and reliable network, even in cases of hardware failures. ince Meraki is cloud-managed, we've noticed that the cloud infrastructure is generally highly reliable, with minimal service interruptions or downtime. This makes it easier to manage the network remotely without significant availability concerns. Meraki automatically pushes firmware updates and patches, which helps maintain system stability without requiring manual intervention. These updates are rolled out in a manner that ensures minimal disruption to service.
The interface is pretty responsive. The lower end devices are easy to overwhelm if you have a lot of throughput. Be sure the model you get is rated for the amount of traffic you will have. Overbuild if possible, otherwise you won't be fully leveraging the connection from your ISP.
I haven't ever had a bad experience with Meraki support. On the few occasions where I wasn't understanding the UI or needed some clarification about what a setting actually would do, I contacted them and they were very quickly able to provide help. Returns are simple and fast, too. We had to return a defective device one time and they shipped the replacement before we had even un-racked the one that was faulty. Unlike many other vendors, they didn't ask use to a do long list of scripted diagnostics, they just took my word for it that the device was broken and sent out a replacement immediately
great when they offered it, really tested your knowledge with hands on and see what your peers from other orgs know. glad to see that we were ahead of the curve of what our peers knew
Implementing Meraki MX devices in phases—starting with a pilot group or select branch offices—was invaluable. This allowed us to identify potential configuration issues, troubleshoot problems, and refine our setup before rolling it out company-wide. It also helped to get feedback from early users and adjust the deployment strategy accordingly. The SD-WAN capabilities in Meraki MX were essential for optimizing our WAN traffic and ensuring better application performance across various locations.
Cisco Meraki MX provides simplicity and scalability while cutting costs. With Meraki MX, you get a Security appliance, router, and Firewall in one appliance and managed with one GUI. These features enable the network engineers to maintain large-scale enterprises with a single dashboard from a remote site or anywhere with internet, all thanks to the Meraki cloud dashboard
The VMware SD wan does give some better WAN metrics, but the interface is super clunky and doesn’t support a full stack. If Meraki could give some more QoE link metrics, it would be perfect.
When I first started with my company we had various infrastructure and a mix of tech. Since going to Cisco Meraki MX we have noticed better network performance and our new sites are much easier to bring online. Users have noticed an improvement in VPN connection and getting into all our systems.
From a positive impact? Basically it allows us to set up shop very quickly. It allowed us to add sites to our network very quickly. From a negative perspective, I think the only thing is that I can see from a negative perspective is I have a preference to working with ACLI in terms of how I engage with the youth tool At the moment, the only way to actually engage with a tool is on a gui and sometimes what I'd actually like is more detailed information in terms of actual configuration that you'll actually get out of ACLI.
