Cisco Meraki MX Model Comparison Dubai
Choosing an MX appliance is not simply a matter of matching the internet circuit speed. The correct model has to sustain the security features you intend to enable, the number of active devices and sessions, the number of VPN tunnels, the required interfaces, the expected growth of the site, and the licensing model used by the Meraki organisation. This comparison explains where each current MX model fits and what UAE buyers should validate before placing an order.
Direct answer: which Cisco Meraki MX should you consider?
Cisco Meraki MX comparison at a glance
Cisco’s sizing guidance makes an important distinction between a model’s laboratory performance ceiling and the recommended scale for a real deployment. The current MX ladder starts with MX67/MX68 for smaller sites and progresses through MX75, MX85, MX95 and MX105 to MX250 and MX450. Recommended device count rises from about 50 devices on MX67/MX68 to 10,000 on MX450, but that number should never be used by itself. A site with fewer users can still need a larger appliance because of high-bandwidth internet, substantial east-west routing, advanced security inspection, many concurrent flows, or a demanding VPN design.
| Model | Recommended devices | Firewall throughput | NGFW prevention | VPN throughput | Recommended S2S tunnels | Typical position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX67 / MX68 | 50 | 700 Mbps | 300 Mbps | 400 Mbps RFC / 300 Mbps EMIX | 50 | Small branch |
| MX75 | 200 | 1 Gbps | 500 Mbps | 1 Gbps | 75 | Higher-capacity small branch |
| MX85 | 250 | 1 Gbps | 500 Mbps | 1 Gbps | 100 | Small to medium branch, rack mount |
| MX95 | 500 | 3 Gbps | 1.5 Gbps | 2.5 Gbps | 250 | Medium to large branch |
| MX105 | 750 | 5 Gbps | 2 Gbps | 3.5 Gbps | 500 | Large branch |
| MX250 | 2,000 | 7.5 Gbps RFC / 7 Gbps EMIX | 2 Gbps | 4 Gbps RFC / 3.5 Gbps EMIX | 1,000 | Large branch, campus or concentrator |
| MX450 | 10,000 | 10 Gbps | 5 Gbps | 6.5 Gbps | 1,500 | High-scale campus, DC or VPN head-end |
Performance figures above follow Cisco Meraki’s current MX sizing guidance and are test figures, not guarantees for every traffic profile. Cisco notes that actual results vary and that feature combinations, traffic patterns and firmware can affect throughput. Proof-of-concept validation is appropriate for critical or unusually demanding designs.
Why the smallest appliance with enough firewall throughput may still be wrong
Headline firewall throughput is useful for a first pass, but it is not a safe final sizing method. Cisco’s own performance data separates basic firewall testing from advanced-security throughput and VPN throughput. On several models the drop from firewall throughput to next-generation firewall prevention throughput is substantial. MX105, for example, is listed at 5 Gbps firewall throughput but 2 Gbps NGFW prevention throughput under Cisco’s stated test conditions. MX250 is listed at 7.5 Gbps firewall throughput in its RFC test yet 2 Gbps for NGFW prevention. If a buyer has a 2 Gbps or multi-gigabit internet circuit and expects full advanced-security inspection, choosing purely on the firewall line would leave much less operational headroom than the WAN circuit suggests.
The second issue is concurrency. Device count and session count are related, but they are not the same. Cisco’s sizing table lists maximum concurrent sessions from 25,000 on MX67/MX68 through 1,000,000 on MX450. A branch of software developers, call-centre agents, cloud-heavy office users, guests and IoT devices can produce far more sessions than a lightly used office with the same headcount. Modern browsers, collaboration suites and SaaS applications open many parallel connections. The firewall therefore needs room for both bandwidth and connection state.
VPN topology adds another dimension. A small branch can be perfectly comfortable on MX67 when it forms a modest number of Auto VPN tunnels. A hub site terminating hundreds of spokes has a different requirement even if local internet browsing is light. Cisco distinguishes maximum tunnel counts from recommended tunnel counts under traffic. That is why the practical question is not “Which MX supports my 1 Gbps line?” but “Which MX sustains the intended security, VPN, route, session and interface profile with enough margin for normal peaks and planned growth?”
Model-by-model buyer guidance
MX67 family
MX67 is the compact option for small branches with modest throughput and scale requirements. Cisco recommends the MX67/MX68 class for up to 50 devices, with 700 Mbps firewall throughput and 25,000 maximum concurrent sessions. The family is especially useful where a business wants a small cloud-managed security edge without a rack-sized appliance.
The variants matter. MX67W adds integrated Wi-Fi, while MX67C adds integrated cellular. The base MX67 does not provide the same built-in wireless or cellular convenience. For MX67 models, dual WAN uses a convertible LAN interface, so the port plan should be checked rather than assuming every physical Ethernet port remains available for LAN use. Consider MX75 instead when the branch is approaching higher bandwidth, a larger client population, or heavier advanced-security inspection.
MX68 family
MX68 shares the same 50-device sizing class and 700 Mbps firewall performance figure as MX67, but it is attractive when the branch needs more local copper LAN connectivity. The MX68 line includes variants with integrated wireless and cellular combinations, and the platform can provide PoE+ on selected LAN ports. That can simplify a very small branch where a limited number of downstream devices need power.
The extra local connectivity does not transform MX68 into a higher-performance appliance. A buyer choosing between MX67 and MX68 should therefore think mainly about integrated interfaces and branch layout, not assume that the larger port count means higher security throughput. If the requirement is more capacity rather than more LAN ports, the next comparison should be MX75.
MX75
MX75 is a strong step up for a small branch that has outgrown the MX67/MX68 class. Cisco recommends it for up to 200 devices, with 1 Gbps firewall throughput, 1 Gbps VPN throughput in the current sizing table and up to 50,000 concurrent sessions. It remains a desktop or wall-mount style platform rather than a full-width rack appliance.
Connectivity is one of its differentiators. The MX75 provides dedicated copper WAN connectivity plus an SFP WAN option and a comparatively generous set of local Gigabit Ethernet ports, including PoE+ capability on two LAN ports. It fits offices that need a compact appliance but also want fibre handoff flexibility or more local interfaces. Advanced-security prevention performance is lower than the headline firewall figure, so a 1 Gbps internet circuit with intensive inspection should be sized with real traffic in mind.
MX85
MX85 is the first model in this comparison that naturally fits buyers wanting a rack-mount branch appliance. Cisco recommends up to 250 devices and lists 125,000 maximum concurrent sessions. Its firewall and current VPN performance remain in the 1 Gbps class, so the jump from MX75 to MX85 is not primarily about doubling raw throughput.
Instead, MX85 can make sense because of rack form factor, more enterprise-oriented interface arrangements, greater session capacity and a higher VPN tunnel ceiling. It offers SFP WAN connectivity and PoE+ capability on a WAN port that can be useful when powering a compatible Meraki cellular gateway. A branch that needs multi-gigabit inspected traffic should look beyond MX85 to MX95 or higher rather than buying MX85 only because it is rack mounted.
MX95
MX95 is a significant performance step for medium to large branches. Cisco’s current sizing guide lists 3 Gbps firewall throughput, 1.5 Gbps NGFW prevention throughput, 2.5 Gbps VPN throughput, 200,000 maximum concurrent sessions and a recommended device count of 500. That profile suits branches where gigabit-class security is no longer enough.
The interface design also moves into multi-gigabit territory. MX95 provides 10 GbE SFP+ WAN options and 2.5 GbE copper WAN connectivity, making it much better aligned to faster service-provider handoffs. If the site has a 2 Gbps internet service, a sizeable Auto VPN topology or substantial SaaS usage, MX95 is often a more logical comparison point than MX85. Buyers still need to validate the security feature set because prevention throughput is lower than the 3 Gbps firewall headline.
MX105
MX105 targets large branches and provides a meaningful increase in both throughput and scale. Cisco recommends up to 750 devices, lists 5 Gbps firewall throughput, 2 Gbps NGFW prevention throughput, 3.5 Gbps VPN throughput and 250,000 concurrent sessions. It also supports a much larger recommended site-to-site tunnel count than MX95.
For resilience, MX105 is notable because Cisco’s capability table lists dual power supply support, something the smaller MX95 and below do not provide. It also offers high-speed SFP+ WAN connectivity and multi-gigabit copper WAN ports. This combination makes MX105 attractive where the branch is business critical and where power, uplink and VPN design deserve more headroom. If the location is acting as a major hub for thousands of endpoints or very large tunnel counts, MX250 becomes the next serious candidate.
MX250
MX250 is designed for large branches, campus environments and concentrator roles. Cisco recommends up to 2,000 devices, lists up to 500,000 concurrent sessions and a recommended site-to-site VPN tunnel count of 1,000. Firewall throughput is listed at 7.5 Gbps in the RFC test and 7 Gbps with the enterprise traffic mix, while VPN throughput is listed at 4 Gbps RFC and 3.5 Gbps EMIX.
The platform provides a far richer rack interface set than branch appliances, including 10 GbE SFP+ and Gigabit Ethernet options, and it supports redundant power supplies. A buyer should compare MX250 with MX105 when the deciding factors are not just WAN speed but also session scale, tunnel concentration, data-centre connectivity and port density. Note that advanced-security prevention performance is considerably below its headline firewall rate, an important consideration for high-bandwidth internet-edge use.
MX450
MX450 is the highest-scale MX model in this comparison. Cisco recommends up to 10,000 devices and lists 1,000,000 concurrent sessions, 10 Gbps firewall throughput, 5 Gbps NGFW prevention throughput and 6.5 Gbps VPN throughput. Its recommended site-to-site tunnel count is 1,500, with a higher laboratory maximum.
This is not simply a “faster branch firewall.” MX450 is suited to high-scale campus, data-centre and VPN aggregation roles where port density, large session tables, tunnel scale and redundant power matter. Buyers considering MX450 should validate whether an MX architecture remains the best fit or whether newer Cisco Secure Router 8000-series platforms should also be evaluated for very high throughput or new design requirements.
A note about changing throughput figures and firmware
Meraki product pages, installation guides and sizing documents can show different performance values because testing methods and firmware generations evolve. For procurement, do not mix numbers from different generations of documentation without understanding the context. Cisco’s current sizing guide explicitly states the firmware basis used for its performance measurements and warns that results vary by environment. It also explains that performance values may change with major firmware versions. This matters because a buyer may find an older model page that quotes a lower or differently defined throughput number than the latest sizing guidance.
The safest practice is to use one current sizing source consistently for comparisons, then validate the final candidate against the specific feature configuration and firmware intended for deployment. For a critical site, a proof of concept or controlled throughput test using representative applications, VPNs and security policies provides more confidence than a marketing number alone.
Ports, uplinks and physical deployment can decide the model before throughput does
The MX range is not a simple ladder where each larger model only adds processing power. The physical platform changes as you move upward. MX67 and MX68 are compact desktop appliances, MX75 remains a desktop or wall-mount option, and MX85 upward moves into 1U rack form factors. The WAN interface mix also progresses from copper-centric small-branch designs through SFP and then SFP+ multi-gigabit options. A correct shortlist therefore begins with the service-provider handoff and the LAN/core architecture, not just with user count.
Copper versus fibre WAN
If the ISP presents 1 GbE copper, many MX models can terminate it directly. If the circuit uses fibre, the exact model and optic must be confirmed. MX75 and MX85 support SFP WAN connectivity, while MX95 and MX105 step up to SFP+ for 10 GbE-class interfaces. MX250 and MX450 provide broader SFP/SFP+ connectivity. The transceiver type, fibre mode, wavelength and distance are separate design choices; do not assume an optic is automatically included.
PoE on selected models
PoE capability is model specific. MX68 and MX75 provide PoE+ on LAN ports, while MX85, MX95 and MX105 provide PoE+ capability associated with a WAN port. This can be useful for powering a compatible Meraki MG cellular gateway in supported designs. PoE should not be treated as a replacement for a proper access switch when many phones, cameras or access points require power.
Rack and power planning
An MX85 or higher model is easier to integrate into a structured rack than a desktop appliance. Power resilience also changes across the range. Cisco lists dual power supply support on MX105, MX250 and MX450. A high-availability pair of appliances improves device redundancy, but power-feed diversity, UPS capacity, rack ventilation and circuit routing still have to be engineered separately.
How to size an MX for real traffic
A useful sizing conversation starts with five independent dimensions: throughput, security inspection, concurrent sessions, VPN scale and physical connectivity. User count is a sixth dimension, but in modern environments it is often a proxy rather than the direct limiter. A 100-user software company using source repositories, video meetings, cloud desktops and multiple SaaS platforms can place a very different load on the firewall from a 100-user warehouse where most devices exchange small transactional messages.
1. Measure internet and private-WAN demand separately
Document every WAN circuit, not only the fastest one. Identify the normal aggregate load, expected peaks and future contracted speed. If two active WAN circuits are used, determine whether traffic can be balanced between them and whether either link must carry the entire site during a failure. Sizing an appliance for the average utilisation of two healthy links can create a problem when one circuit fails and the surviving link suddenly carries all business traffic.
2. Decide which security controls will actually run
Basic Layer 3 firewalling does not have the same processing cost as full advanced-security inspection. Cisco’s sizing guidance identifies advanced malware protection and content filtering as lower-impact functions, while IDS/IPS has a medium impact and on-device HTTPS inspection can have a high impact. The relevant benchmark is therefore the one that best resembles the intended policy. If the buyer needs a highly inspected direct internet breakout, advanced-security throughput deserves more weight than the firewall line.
3. Count devices and understand their behaviour
Cisco provides recommended maximum device counts of 50 for MX67/MX68, 200 for MX75, 250 for MX85, 500 for MX95, 750 for MX105, 2,000 for MX250 and 10,000 for MX450. These are useful guidelines, not a substitute for traffic analysis. Include employee endpoints, mobile devices, printers, cameras, servers, voice systems, IoT devices and guest clients that traverse the appliance. A site with many unmanaged guest clients can exceed the expected connection load even when employee headcount appears modest.
4. Model VPN tunnels and hub concentration
Auto VPN makes branch connectivity easier to operate, but every topology has scale implications. A full-mesh design creates more tunnels than a hub-and-spoke design. A hub terminating hundreds of spokes needs greater tunnel and session capacity than the remote branches. Cisco publishes both maximum and recommended site-to-site tunnel counts; the recommended values are more useful for production planning because they consider traffic across the tunnels. The hub may therefore need a much larger model than its local user count suggests.
5. Preserve headroom
Do not design a new site so that it begins life near a published maximum. Growth may come from a faster ISP, more cloud applications, a company acquisition, added cameras, new branches, stronger inspection policies or a change in VPN architecture. Practical headroom gives the network room to absorb normal peaks and change without an immediate hardware refresh. The correct percentage depends on business criticality and forecast certainty, so it should be discussed rather than applied as an arbitrary universal rule.
MX licensing: hardware choice and license choice are separate decisions
An MX appliance requires a compatible Meraki license. The exact licensing path depends on whether the organisation uses co-termination, per-device licensing where applicable, or the newer subscription model. Buyers should establish the organisation’s current licensing model before a quotation is finalised because the feature tier, term and SKU structure can differ.
Co-term MX editions
Cisco documents three main co-term MX editions: Enterprise, Advanced Security and Secure SD-WAN Plus. Enterprise covers core firewall, connectivity and SD-WAN functions. Advanced Security adds the unified-threat-management feature set used by organisations that break out directly to the internet and require stronger inspection. Secure SD-WAN Plus adds advanced application and analytics capabilities intended for sites where SaaS, IaaS and data-centre application performance is especially important.
A major procurement point is that the co-term MX edition is generally uniform across the organisation. An organisation cannot simply place a few appliances on Enterprise and others on Advanced Security as if each site were independently tiered. Cisco documents specific exceptions and per-device SD-WAN Plus mechanisms, but the existing organisation design must be checked before mixing assumptions into a bill of materials.
Subscription licensing
Cisco also offers subscription licensing with Essential and Advantage feature tiers for the MX product class. Subscription SKUs are more hardware-agnostic than traditional per-model co-term licenses and group hardware into product classes such as MX Small, Medium, Large and X-Large. This can simplify certain refresh scenarios, but it does not mean every model is interchangeable without checking product-class coverage and the subscription assigned to the network.
Subscription and co-termination licenses cannot simply be mixed in one dashboard organisation. For a new greenfield deployment, the licensing model should be decided before ordering. For an existing estate, the current organisation and renewal strategy may make one route more practical than another.
High availability is more than buying two appliances
Meraki supports warm-spare high availability for appropriate MX deployments. Cisco’s licensing guidance states that an MX warm-spare pair requires one license for the pair, so the main incremental cost is the second hardware unit rather than a duplicate license. That commercial advantage does not remove the need for correct physical and logical design.
A resilient edge should examine appliance failure, power failure, upstream switch failure, ISP failure and cabling failure separately. Two MX appliances connected to one power strip and one upstream handoff do not remove those shared dependencies. For MX105, MX250 and MX450, dual power supply support can improve power resilience when feeds are properly diversified. On smaller models, appliance HA still provides device redundancy, but the power design remains simpler and potentially more constrained.
WAN resilience also requires realistic traffic planning. Cisco lists WAN failover of less than five seconds and sub-second Auto VPN tunnel failover and dynamic path selection when the relevant criteria are met. The application experience during failover still depends on session behaviour, upstream routing, carrier convergence and the application’s own tolerance. Voice and real-time collaboration deserve particular attention because even short interruptions can be noticed by users.
For a UAE headquarters, payment environment, healthcare site, hotel, operations centre or other location where downtime has material business impact, the HA design should be quoted as a complete architecture: two appliances where justified, independent power where possible, dual WAN paths, suitable upstream switching, correctly planned virtual IPs and a documented failover test.
Use-case matrix: where each model tends to fit
| Scenario | Models to compare first | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Small retail or remote office | MX67 / MX68 | Compact form factor, 50-device sizing class and variants with integrated wireless or cellular. MX68 is attractive when more local LAN ports or PoE+ are useful. |
| Busy small branch | MX75 / MX85 | 1 Gbps firewall class, larger device/session scale. MX75 is compact with strong local port flexibility; MX85 suits rack installations and higher tunnel/session requirements. |
| Medium branch with multi-gig internet | MX95 / MX105 | Higher firewall, NGFW and VPN performance plus 10 GbE SFP+ WAN options. MX105 adds greater scale and dual power supply support. |
| Large branch or regional hub | MX105 / MX250 | Large differences in session count, tunnel scale and interface density make this a design-driven choice rather than a simple throughput step. |
| Campus or VPN concentrator | MX250 / MX450 | High session scale, larger recommended tunnel counts, dense SFP/SFP+ connectivity and redundant power support. |
| Cloud VPC/VNet termination | vMX Small / Medium / Large | Virtual MX is designed for cloud environments rather than a physical branch edge. Size by cloud connectivity, VPN scale and supported platform requirements. |
MX67 vs MX68: choose by branch integration, not by performance
MX67 and MX68 occupy the same performance and recommended-device class in Cisco’s sizing guide. That means the decision between them is usually driven by physical interfaces and integrated branch functions. MX67 offers a compact edge and comes in variants with integrated Wi-Fi or LTE. MX68 provides more LAN ports and has variants that combine wireless and cellular options, while also offering PoE+ on selected LAN ports.
A small branch with an existing managed switch stack and separate wireless access points may gain little from the extra MX68 local ports. A pop-up branch, clinic, kiosk, small shop or temporary site may value the integrated functions more. Conversely, integrated Wi-Fi should not be selected just because it is convenient if the site requires enterprise wireless coverage that really needs multiple ceiling-mounted access points. The firewall and the wireless design are related, but they should still be engineered on their own merits.
If the projected device count is approaching 50 or the internet circuit is already near the performance ceiling after security services are considered, the more important question is whether the site should move to MX75. Buying MX68 for its additional ports does not create additional processing headroom over MX67.
MX75 vs MX85: desktop flexibility or rack-oriented scale?
MX75 and MX85 share similar current headline performance figures: both are listed at 1 Gbps firewall throughput and 1 Gbps VPN throughput, with 500 Mbps NGFW prevention throughput. Yet they are not interchangeable. MX75 is recommended for up to 200 devices and 50,000 concurrent sessions; MX85 is recommended for up to 250 devices and 125,000 concurrent sessions. MX85 also supports a much higher maximum site-to-site tunnel count and a higher recommended tunnel count.
The physical distinction can be decisive. MX75 is compact and offers many local copper LAN ports plus an SFP WAN option. MX85 is a 1U rack-mount platform and provides a different LAN/WAN interface arrangement. Organisations standardising on racks across branches often prefer MX85 even where MX75 has enough bandwidth. Smaller offices that need many directly connected local devices and value a compact footprint may prefer MX75.
Neither should be selected for sustained multi-gigabit inspected internet just because the ISP service can burst above 1 Gbps. In that scenario, compare MX95. The difference in purchase price may be less important than avoiding a second hardware refresh when the branch begins using the bandwidth it has already bought.
MX95 vs MX105: performance, VPN scale and power resilience
MX95 and MX105 are closely related in physical design, but the performance and scale differences are substantial. MX95 is sized for about 500 devices with 3 Gbps firewall throughput, 1.5 Gbps NGFW prevention throughput and 2.5 Gbps VPN throughput. MX105 increases the guidance to 750 devices, 5 Gbps firewall throughput, 2 Gbps NGFW prevention and 3.5 Gbps VPN throughput. Maximum concurrent sessions rise from 200,000 to 250,000, while recommended site-to-site tunnels increase from 250 to 500.
MX105 also adds dual power supply support according to Cisco’s capability matrix. For a business-critical site, that can be an architectural reason to choose MX105 even when MX95 has sufficient average throughput. Redundant power supplies only improve resilience if connected to appropriately independent power sources, so the rack and UPS design still matters.
The decision should consider the three-year or five-year network roadmap. If the branch is already close to 500 devices, plans a second high-speed ISP, will become a VPN hub, or is expected to increase security inspection, MX105 can provide useful room. If traffic, sessions and tunnels are comfortably inside MX95 limits and dual PSU is not needed, MX95 can be the more proportionate choice.
MX250 vs MX450: concentration roles demand different sizing logic
MX250 and MX450 are often deployed where branch-style user counts stop being the primary design metric. A headquarters, campus or data-centre concentrator can have relatively little direct local browsing yet terminate very large numbers of Auto VPN tunnels and concurrent sessions. MX250 is recommended for up to 2,000 devices and 1,000 active site-to-site tunnels under Cisco’s recommended figure. MX450 scales to a recommended 10,000 devices and 1,500 site-to-site tunnels, with a laboratory maximum of 5,000 tunnels.
Performance also differs. MX250 reaches 7.5 Gbps firewall throughput in Cisco’s RFC test and 7 Gbps with the enterprise traffic mix, while MX450 is listed at 10 Gbps for both. The larger distinction under security inspection is 2 Gbps NGFW prevention on MX250 versus 5 Gbps on MX450. VPN throughput rises from 4 Gbps RFC / 3.5 Gbps EMIX on MX250 to 6.5 Gbps on MX450. That can matter at a central hub where encrypted traffic from many sites converges.
Do not automatically choose MX450 because it is the largest MX. If the actual number of tunnels, sessions and inspected gigabits fits MX250 with sensible margin, MX250 may be entirely appropriate. Conversely, a rapidly growing hub that is already close to MX250’s recommended tunnel count deserves a deeper architecture review rather than assuming another incremental upgrade will solve the long-term design.
When to compare the MX family with Cisco Secure Router 8000-series platforms
Cisco’s current sizing documentation now lists Cisco Secure Router 8000-series platforms alongside the traditional MX family. The C8111-G2-MX/C8121-G2-MX class targets smaller sites with higher modern performance than the oldest small-branch MX platforms, while C8355-G2-MX and C8455-G2-MX extend to much larger throughput, route and session scales. This does not make MX67 through MX450 obsolete as a family; it does mean that a new design should not automatically assume the only upgrade path is to keep moving upward through the historical MX ladder.
The newer secure-router platforms are especially worth comparing when the project needs higher throughput, more active WAN options, large route tables, advanced interfaces or a long hardware lifecycle for a greenfield deployment. Cisco’s sizing guide lists up to 20 Gbps firewall throughput and 10 Gbps VPN throughput on the C8455-G2-MX, above the MX450 figures. The C8111/C8121 family can also provide integrated connectivity options depending on the exact variant.
For an existing standardised MX estate, operational consistency, existing templates, spare strategy and support processes may still make an MX model the right choice. For a net-new UAE architecture, however, ask for a side-by-side design comparison when requirements reach the top of the MX range or when the project specifically needs capabilities emphasised by the newer secure-router generation.
Virtual MX is a different decision from physical MX
vMX is a virtual security and SD-WAN appliance for cloud environments. It is commonly used to extend Auto VPN connectivity into public-cloud networks rather than to replace a physical branch firewall with a virtual machine on site. Cisco lists vMX Small, Medium and Large sizes with different VPN and session scale. Cloud platform support, instance sizing and licensing must be checked for the chosen provider and region.
A hybrid deployment may therefore use physical MX appliances in Dubai branches and vMX in AWS, Azure, Google Cloud or another supported cloud platform. The branch model should be sized for local users, internet breakout and VPN traffic; the vMX should be sized for the aggregate cloud-side VPN traffic and the number of connected networks. The two sides do not have to be the same size.
If the organisation is moving workloads from a UAE data centre into cloud services, vMX can be part of the migration architecture, but route design, cloud transit architecture, availability zones, eBGP where applicable, and failover behaviour should be planned as part of the project rather than treated as an appliance-only purchase.
Migration from older MX64, MX65, MX84 or MX100 appliances
Many installed Meraki environments still contain earlier MX platforms such as MX64, MX65, MX84 or MX100. Cisco’s firmware restriction documentation indicates that these older models cannot move to the newest major firmware trains in the same way as current MX67/68, MX75/85, MX95/105, MX250 and MX450 platforms. A refresh project should therefore examine lifecycle and firmware compatibility as well as raw capacity.
The correct replacement is not always a model with a similar name or chassis size. An MX84 estate may map to MX85 from a physical/rack perspective, but a branch whose internet circuit has grown significantly might be better served by MX95. Likewise, an MX100 replacement could be MX105 in one site and MX250 in another depending on tunnel concentration, LAN interfaces and inspected throughput. Replacement planning is a chance to re-size using current traffic rather than simply copying the old bill of materials.
Configuration migration should consider dashboard network structure, templates, VLANs, static routes, routing protocols, firewall policies, site-to-site VPN settings, third-party VPN peers, client VPN, authentication, content filtering, traffic shaping, syslog integrations and monitoring. Hardware swap procedures are simpler when the logical design is well documented and when every external dependency has been identified first.
Licensing is equally important. Traditional licenses are model specific under some licensing models, while subscription licensing groups models into product classes. Do not assume the old license automatically covers a replacement appliance. The renewal date, licensing model, feature tier and intended replacement model should be reviewed together.
UAE and Dubai deployment considerations
A Dubai deployment has the same core Meraki sizing principles as anywhere else, but local procurement and infrastructure details influence the final design. The WAN handoff from the service provider should be documented precisely: copper or fibre, bandwidth, static address requirements, VLAN tagging, routed block, PPPoE where applicable, and any managed CPE that remains in front of the firewall. Where two carriers are used, obtain the details for both rather than assuming they present identical interfaces.
Power cords and rack standards also need confirmation. Meraki hardware documentation lists different regional power cords for many rack appliances. The quotation should reflect the cable required for the installation environment and any redundant PSU configuration. For fibre WAN or LAN, the optic and patch lead must match the network. Cisco Meraki offers compatible SFP and SFP+ transceivers, but the correct choice depends on link type and distance.
For sites using cellular failover, check the exact integrated-cellular model or external MG gateway approach, the carrier/SIM arrangement and signal availability at the rack location. An integrated cellular appliance can simplify a small branch; an external cellular gateway can provide placement flexibility when the server room has poor radio conditions.
FourTeck UAE can help align the hardware shortlist, licensing, optics, high-availability hardware and implementation scope with the actual site requirements. For UAE-wide projects, it is useful to standardise a small number of approved branch profiles—for example, small, medium and large—while still allowing exceptions where a particular site has unusual bandwidth or VPN requirements.
Security feature choices that affect the model decision
IDS/IPS
Cisco identifies Snort IDS/IPS as having a medium performance impact in its sizing guidance. Security policy, ruleset choice and traffic mix influence the result. If prevention is required on a high-speed direct internet link, use the NGFW prevention benchmark as a more realistic starting point than the firewall-only figure.
Malware protection and content filtering
Advanced Malware Protection and content filtering are part of higher security tiers and add security value for internet-connected branches. Cisco classifies their individual performance impact as lower than some other features, but the overall stack should still be tested together because the appliance processes the complete policy, not isolated checklist items.
HTTPS inspection
On-device HTTPS inspection can have a high performance impact. It also introduces certificate, application compatibility and privacy considerations. If decryption is central to the security design, the exact supported platform, firmware, license and expected throughput should be reviewed carefully rather than assuming ordinary NGFW numbers apply unchanged.
SaaS performance analytics
Secure SD-WAN Plus is aimed at environments where application experience across SaaS, IaaS and data-centre paths is a major concern. The value is not simply “more security”; it adds analytics and application-aware capabilities. A buyer should therefore choose this tier because the operational use case requires it, not because it sounds like the most premium license.
Auto VPN and SD-WAN design questions
One of Meraki’s strongest operational advantages is Auto VPN, which automates much of the site-to-site VPN configuration across the dashboard. Ease of configuration should not be confused with unlimited scale. The number of tunnels grows according to topology, and central hubs carry aggregate traffic from many remote sites. Cisco’s recommended tunnel counts therefore deserve serious attention in a multi-branch design.
For a small network with ten branches, almost every current MX model has ample tunnel scale. For hundreds of branches, hub sizing becomes a first-order decision. MX85 has a recommended site-to-site tunnel count of 100, MX95 250, MX105 500, MX250 1,000 and MX450 1,500. A design that anticipates substantial growth should avoid choosing a hub whose recommended limit will be approached soon after rollout.
Dynamic path selection and SD-WAN policies also rely on multiple WAN paths and appropriate performance thresholds. The best result comes when the primary and backup circuits are both capable of carrying meaningful application traffic. A very slow backup circuit can keep the site technically online while delivering poor experience. The firewall model cannot fix an undersized carrier path.
Third-party VPN requirements should be identified separately from Meraki Auto VPN. Interoperability, encryption parameters, routing, NAT and failover behaviour may differ. If the project connects to non-Meraki firewalls, cloud gateways or partner networks, list every peer before sizing and configuration are finalised.
Remote-access VPN and user concurrency
Remote-access VPN can become a hidden sizing constraint for headquarters and shared services. Cisco’s sizing guidance lists maximum Secure Client sessions of 100 on MX67/MX68, 250 on MX75 and MX85, 500 on MX95, 750 on MX105, 1,000 on MX250 and 1,500 on MX450. These values are separate from site-to-site VPN tunnel counts.
If a UAE headquarters is expected to support hundreds of remote workers during travel, emergency work-from-home situations or after-hours operations, include that peak in the design. A model selected only for office internet traffic may not have the desired remote-access headroom. Authentication and identity integration also need to be part of the solution, including certificates, identity providers or RADIUS where required.
Remote-access VPN is also an area where user experience depends on more than the appliance. The data-centre internet link, latency to remote users, application architecture and split-tunnel policy can dominate perceived performance. The firewall should have enough capacity, but a complete design addresses the full path.
A practical selection workflow for buyers
- Define the site role. Decide whether the appliance is a small branch edge, large branch, internet firewall, SD-WAN hub, campus concentrator, data-centre device or cloud connectivity component. The role determines which scale metric matters most.
- Record present and planned WAN speeds. Include all circuits, failover expectations and the speed each circuit must carry during a failure.
- Count devices and estimate sessions. Include users, phones, servers, cameras, guest clients and IoT. Look at current firewall session data where available rather than estimating only from headcount.
- Choose security features and license tier. Decide whether Enterprise-class connectivity is sufficient or whether Advanced Security / Secure SD-WAN Plus, or the subscription equivalents, better match the policy.
- Map VPN scale. Count current branches, planned branches, third-party peers and remote-access users. Determine whether the site is a spoke or a hub.
- Validate interfaces. Check copper, SFP, SFP+, multi-gigabit WAN, LAN port count, PoE needs, optics, rack form factor and redundant power requirements.
- Add realistic headroom. Account for growth, security inspection, bursts and failure scenarios without simply selecting the biggest model.
- Validate before procurement. For high-risk deployments, confirm the final design against current Cisco documentation and run a proof of concept or representative traffic test where practical.
Common buying mistakes
Sizing only to ISP bandwidth
A 1 Gbps circuit does not automatically mean a 1 Gbps firewall is sufficient. If security inspection reduces usable throughput or the device also terminates heavy VPN traffic, a larger model may be required.
Ignoring the licensing model
Quoting hardware without confirming co-term, per-device or subscription licensing can create an incomplete bill of materials and may introduce feature-tier conflicts with an existing organisation.
Treating maximums as design targets
Maximum tunnel or session numbers are ceilings, not comfortable production targets. Cisco publishes recommended tunnel counts for a reason: traffic and feature load change the practical operating point.
Forgetting optics and power
A correct appliance can still be delayed if the fibre transceiver, patch cable, regional power cord, rack kit or redundant PSU design is missing from the order.
Copying an old model one-for-one
A refresh should use present traffic and future requirements. An old MX84 does not automatically mean MX85, and an MX100 does not automatically mean MX105.
Ignoring newer Cisco alternatives
For greenfield or high-throughput designs, current Cisco Secure Router 8000-series options may deserve comparison alongside MX rather than assuming MX450 is always the end of the decision tree.
Procurement details that improve quotation accuracy
A Meraki quotation becomes more accurate when the request includes design inputs rather than only a model name. For a single replacement unit, the current hardware, licence model and renewal date may be enough to start. For a new multi-site rollout, the information set should be broader.
Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Northern Emirates or international branches, including which sites are hubs.Users and devices per site
Include employee endpoints, guests, cameras, servers, IoT and voice devices.WAN services
Primary and backup bandwidth, handoff type, provider CPE and addressing.Security policy
Whether IDS/IPS, malware protection, content filtering, HTTPS inspection or direct breakout are required.VPN topology
Auto VPN spokes, hubs, third-party peers and remote-access concurrency.Licensing
Current Meraki organisation model, desired tier and intended term.Interfaces and optics
Copper, SFP/SFP+, fibre type, distance and required local LAN ports.Resilience and services
HA pair, dual PSU where supported, installation, migration, configuration and testing requirements.
Frequently asked Cisco Meraki MX comparison questions
Is MX75 faster than MX85?
In Cisco’s current sizing guide, MX75 and MX85 share 1 Gbps firewall and 1 Gbps VPN throughput figures, with 500 Mbps NGFW prevention. MX85 provides higher device, session and tunnel scale plus a rack-mount form factor. It is therefore a scale and deployment-format upgrade more than a raw-throughput upgrade.
Which MX supports a 2 Gbps internet link?
MX95 is the first current MX model in the sizing table with firewall throughput clearly above 2 Gbps, but the correct choice depends on security features. Its NGFW prevention figure is 1.5 Gbps, so a 2 Gbps circuit that must be fully inspected may justify MX105 or a deeper design review.
Do I need two licenses for an MX HA pair?
Cisco states that a warm-spare pair of MX appliances requires one license for the pair. The second hardware unit is still required, and the complete design should include power, WAN, switching and failover dependencies.
Can different MX models use different co-term security editions in one organisation?
Cisco’s co-term guidance generally requires a uniform MX edition across an organisation. Special licensing constructs exist for some SD-WAN Plus use cases, but a buyer should not assume that Enterprise and Advanced Security can be freely mixed appliance by appliance.
Which model is best for 500 devices?
MX95 is the model Cisco recommends for up to 500 devices, but that does not automatically make it correct. If the site has heavy inspection, many VPN tunnels, multi-gigabit WAN or strong growth, MX105 can be more appropriate. Device count is one sizing input, not the final answer.
Which MX has redundant power supplies?
Cisco’s current capability table lists dual power supply support for MX105, MX250 and MX450. Smaller models can still be deployed as redundant appliances, but their individual power architecture is different.
Should I replace MX84 with MX85?
MX85 is the natural rack-mount successor to compare, but do not make the decision by name alone. Re-size the branch using current bandwidth, security, sessions, VPN and interface requirements. A busy site may warrant MX95.
Is MX450 always the best choice for a data centre?
No. MX250 may have sufficient scale for many concentrator roles, while newer Cisco Secure Router 8000-series platforms may be a better comparison for certain high-throughput or greenfield designs. The choice should follow the route, tunnel, session, interface and security requirements.
Decision recap
What FourTeck needs for an accurate MX quotation
Current MX model if this is a replacement, or the candidate models already under consideration.
Number of appliances, whether HA pairs are needed, and which locations are branches or hubs.
Approximate users/devices, WAN bandwidth, major applications and expected growth.
Firewall only, advanced security, direct internet breakout, content filtering, IDS/IPS or other controls.
Spoke/hub count, third-party peers, remote-access users, static routes or dynamic-routing requirements.
Current dashboard licensing model, desired term, migration support, installation and testing scope.
Shortlist the right Cisco Meraki MX for your UAE site
Send FourTeck your site count, WAN bandwidth, approximate device count, security requirements, VPN topology and preferred licensing term. We can compare the relevant MX models, identify where a larger or smaller appliance makes sense, and build a quotation that includes the required licences, optics, power and implementation scope rather than quoting hardware in isolation.