Cisco Meraki vMX vs. FatPipe MPVPN

We are a heavily invested Meraki environment, from our corporate locations to APs. Using a vMX as apposed another solution is a no brainer. It integrates well, has the same benefits as the rest of the Meraki stack, and you can leverage your favorite cloud platform

Incentivized

If you need multiple ISPs for wan aggregation or site to site failover. This box can tolerate failures of ISPs and sites with less than 1-3 seconds of outage time.

Incentivized

• Works well with physical Meraki MX devices
• Site-to-Site VPNs are easy to set up with other Meraki devices
• Cisco Meraki vMX provides a great solution for a virtual environment, like Azure

Incentivized

• Load balancing of ISPs
• Site to site failover
• SmartDNS

Incentivized

• Client VPN: Cisco Meraki vMX in general needs to implement multiple VPN profiles/ group policies for client VPN
• Alerts: Cisco Meraki vMX in general should be more consistent in sending alerts. We should receive alarms instantly.
• Event logs: More in-depth event logs for all Meraki products, such as system crashes, etc.

Incentivized

• Could use a training manual.

Incentivized

I've used the FortiGate VM appliance many times and this was much better to use, it was a full feature set and had no setbacks ever. But people use Meraki for different reasons likely so it's not 100% apples to apples. As an SR engineer, I demand deep feature sets, etc, while some users strive for simplistic networks that are very visually appealing.

Incentivized

Fatpipe invented SD-WAN over 25 years ago and has been leading the way. Other companies I think have just ridden their coattails.

Incentivized

We have over 350 locations and growing. We chose Cisco Meraki vMX because of ease of use and how it scales.

Incentivized

• vMX is cheaper than Azure VPN gateway
• there is no native support for HA, so you need to deploy second instance

Incentivized

• We have lost ISPs without any business disconnections.
• Business continuity at its best.

Incentivized