We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and Sophos Cyberoam UTM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Unified Threat Management (UTM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is very user friendly. The user interface in particular is quite nice."
"The inspection and web security features are most valuable."
"It's inexpensive compared to some of the other technology out there."
"The ability to set up remote systems is the most valuable feature."
"Anti-Spam web content filterinG."
"The SD-WAN feature is the most valuable. This feature evolved from link load balancing. It has helped us in terms of our uptime and privatizing applications whenever we experience an outage. The SD-WAN feature has been a plus for us. Two-factor authentication has allowed us to add more users in terms of remote working. We have two-factor authentication for remote workers to authenticate them before they get on the network."
"It is a one box solution, which covers most of the edge device’s requirements."
"The management console is pretty simple, so anyone who understands networking can initially deploy the solution."
"It was very easy to install the solution, and the architecture meant we didn't have to worry about exceeding the solution's capacity."
"Our clients choose CloudGuard as a natural progression of their solutions. They understand Microsoft and CloudGuard fits."
"Its centralized control, ease of use, and flexibility are the most valuable for our data center security."
"It improves the availability of engineers to carry out projects."
"The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features."
"One of the main characteristics that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has given us is granularity and visibility."
"CloudGuard's intelligent tools help us automate many manual security tasks, guaranteeing our customers' environments will be secure."
"The product has allowed us to develop applications from the cloud - even with large environments and well-segmented security lines."
"All in one UTM appliance."
"The performance has been good overall."
"You can geofence yourself if there is an incoming attack or a continuous ping from a company outside your country."
"The product is a simple and user-friendly UTM that can handle accounting, reporting, firewall, IPS, and antivirus for industries."
"In terms of features and user-friendliness, the solution is good. It’s very stable. The solution is scalable. In Sophos Cyberoam UTM, the most valuable features are web and application filtering, routing functionalities, and VPN. It has helped us manage the bandwidth."
"The tool is stable."
"Web and content filtering are valuable in preventing people from abusing the network and pushing up the bandwidth price."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM is used for perimeter security, web filtering, intrusion prevention and as a VPN."
"I think that the infrastructure for the VPN could be improved. The way that it is bundled also made it difficult to use and sell as it is too expensive."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"The feedback that I have received is that the performance could be better, and the user experience is not as good compared to a previous solution we used. It could be more user-friendly. Of course, it still works fine for our operations."
"Bandwidth usage in reporting could be improved for Fortinet FortiGate."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"The logs need to be better. They need to be more visible and easier to access."
"There are problems with the custom reporting of the unique traffic. The data is there, but it is too difficult for us to extract."
"The firewall engine is not so strong as of now, in my opinion... My second concern is that, while they have Zero-day vulnerability and anti-malware features, the threat engine needs to be strengthened, its efficiency can be increased."
"The biggest room for improvement is that, for a long time now, they've moved everything over to R80 but they still maintain some of the stuff in the old dashboard. They need to "buy in" and move everything to the modern dashboard so that you don't have to go to one place and to another place, at times, to configure the environment. It's time they just finish what they started and put everything in the new, modern dashboard."
"I want the upgrades of their CloudGuard solution to major versions to be easier. We have had a few small hiccups. They have different types of cloud clusters called Geo Clusters, and those just cannot be upgraded past a certain point, which is a hurdle that we are currently experiencing."
"What I would like for future updates would be faster updates to apply, and perhaps a greater presence in the local language for the regions of Latin America."
"In the next release, including VRF support would be highly beneficial."
"The solution lacks the capability to scale effectively."
"I haven't used CloudGuard Network Security in the past couple of years as I moved out of the network security role. However, based on my previous experience, there were improvements, especially in in-place upgrades. Regarding cost, it might be potentially cheaper considering resource utilization in Azure and VM costs, but licensing could be improved, possibly moving towards a simpler model."
"It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees."
"If you compare the GUI with the Palo Alto and Forcepoint in the Cisco, they're very easy. Check Point, due to its design, is a little bit complex. They should make the GUI easy to use so that anyone can understand it easily, like Fortinet's GUI. Many companies end up using Fortinet because the GUI is very easy, and there's no need for training. They just deploy the box and do the configuration."
"The price is obviously a more sensitive area to focus on."
"What needs improvement in Sophos Cyberoam UTM is openness in the competition among Sophos partners or any other Sophos product. Another area for improvement in the solution is pricing. It could be cheaper."
"Sophos VPN connectivity could be improved, as it can be lengthy, and users take longer to connect"
"It isn't missing anything."
"SD-WAN should be included in the tool."
"The product needs to improve its pricing."
"I don't know whether this will be included in an upgrade, but I would like to get the user utility, like seeing where the users are using more of the data."
"The configuration requires an expert to be set up, so it could be made simpler."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 121 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 81 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "Highly reliable, great visibility, and centralized management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "Stable and has a straightforward setup; reporting is fast and easy". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with VMware NSX, Azure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco Secure Firewall and Fortinet FortiGate-VM, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Sophos XG. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. Sophos Cyberoam UTM report.
See our list of best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Unified Threat Management (UTM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
