Cisco Meraki Z3 Teleworker vs. Juniper MX Series

The Cisco Meraki Z3 Teleworker appliance was ideal for scenarios where the remote worker spent the majority of their time remote. It alleviates the need for VPN software and gives the IT staff additional visibility into the connectivity of the user. We often encountered scenarios where the users broadband was having issues vs the Meraki network and the tools Meraki provides help to work through these scenarios. The case for the Meraki devices is not as strong for occasional users who cannot justify the cost of the appliance vs just logging in via VPN.

Incentivized

It is well suited as a WAN/Internet Edge device. It is easy to configure BGP, contexts and routing instances. Its suite of tools has saved our organization money by being able to provide services (tag stacking, for example) that our provider would normally charge us more for. Due to interface cost this would not be appropriate as a LAN aggregation device.

Incentivized

• Easy setup for remote worker
• Versatility with WiFi and cable connections
• Safe to outages with dual wan setup

Incentivized

• It's a robust platform, very resilient. It handles large traffic flows well.
• It's a flexible architecture, it can be configured with provider or enterprise options (or both!)
• It has an excellent versioning system, simple commit/confirm/rollback procedures!

Incentivized

• When Internet is lost and come back we need to reset the Z3 device from the dashboard in order to register the IP Phone to CUCM
• It would be nice to manage the Z3 device to a local web portal just for TS
• Max Speed 100Mbps. It would be nice if it could run up to 1GB

Incentivized

• Sometimes I wish that documentation was more robust, complete, though this has been improved of late.
• It would be nice if netflow was easier to configure.
• It would be nice if the platform was cheaper.

Incentivized

At the time of implementation, we were not aware of a comparable product from Cisco or comparative vendor. We had initially deployed the Z1 appliance and had so much success that the transition to the Cisco Meraki Z3 Teleworker was a quick and easy fit for us. The device is easy to deploy and just works.

Incentivized

We preferred Juniper over Cisco for our WAN/Internet routing needs for a number of reasons. First was the price, the Juniper offering was much more competitive than Cisco's. Secondly, was feature set, Juniper's implementation of routing protocols, routing tables, and forwarding options are better thought-out than Cisco's (not to mention Juniper's longstanding use of commit/confirm/rollback features, which Cisco has only started to use recently, and only on some of their products).

Incentivized

The product is very scalable due to its implementation to the Meraki cloud and SD-WAN capabilities.

Incentivized

• Good visibility for IT team so we can monitor and validate the teleworker traffic
• Zero Touch Provisioning so we do not need to send a Engineer to configure it.
• Consumer-grade network security

Incentivized

• Its flexible architecture and configuration styles has saved our organization money by providing feature we would have otherwise needed to purchase from our ISPs.
• It has a long and healthy lifecycle, with potential upgrades for more performance if needed. (This helps alleviate the downtime associated with chassis replacement.)
• The only drawback is some of the highest throughput interfaces are expensive.

Incentivized