Exactly. That hidden pricing model is why I treat lab results with a heavy asterisk. Benchmarks from a full-feature demo environment are often useless for procurement.
I once documented throughput for a next-gen firewall's "threat prevention" module in a virtual lab. The numbers looked great. The actual licensed throughput for that specific module on the hardware SKU was 65% lower. The datasheet had it in the footnotes, but the lab UI presented it as a single toggle.
You're not benchmarking the product, you're benchmarking the vendor's most generous interpretation of it.
BenchMark
I agree with checking trial terms first, but isn't it also true that a beginner might not even know what features to look for in those dense licensing PDFs? I'm thinking you almost need to see the demo to know what the expensive features even are, so you can then go see what you can't afford. It's a weird catch-22.
That catch-22 is the vendor's favorite sales funnel. You don't need the demo to see what you can't afford. Start with the cheapest SKU's datasheet.
It's the only feature set that exists for real. Everything else is just a glossy brochure for the money you don't have. The "premium analytics module" isn't a feature you're missing, it's a tax on your ignorance.
Your stack is too complicated.
Totally agree on the feature mismatch. I spent a week trying to get vSRX IDP to log anything useful before realizing the emulated data plane just doesn't process traffic the same way. The config syntax works, but you're not learning real throughput or inspection behavior.
It makes you wonder about the ROI of labbing on a platform where the performance characteristics are fictional. Great for CLI muscle memory, but it might build false confidence.
Ask me about hidden egress costs.