We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW 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 most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"The solution has very good threat and content filtering switches."
"Security, SD-WAN, and Streetscape are valuable features."
"The main benefit is the grouping of our security monitoring."
"The simplicity of the product is great. It's very easy to use, which is a compliment we get all the time in terms of feedback."
"It does a lot for you for intrusion protection and as an antivirus. The threat management bundle is worth the money. You don't need another company to monitor your web traffic for you. You can do everything yourself on the firewall. You restrict your own black list for people on the firewall. You don't need to pay some other company for another product to do that for you. The firewall can do that for you. So, it's an easy-to-use product for people to be independent. They don't need to rely on other vendors to do what the firewall can do. They can do everything."
"The secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"The rules are very easy to deploy and can be optimized pretty quickly."
"Provides very good performance."
"The Identity-Based Inspection Control gives us the ability to leverage the organization’s Microsoft AD, LDAP, RADIUS, and Cisco pxGrid."
"If you want to share traffic loads to both cluster members you can use the active-active feature, if you don't want to share traffic loads you can prefer active standby."
"The Blades work fine and the performance optimization is great."
"We have all the features we want or need in this appliance. It's been good so far."
"Configuration and deploying are easy."
"We like the centralized management for configuring multiple firewalls. It also gives us the Antivirus, threat prevention, and vulnerability tests. These four features protect the environment with security checks. Vulnerability tests allow us to configure changes that can protect the environment."
"The product, itself, doesn't seem to have any bugs or glitches."
"The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is a very strong product with good support."
"For a small-medium enterprise this solution is easy to manage and operate."
"The solution's interface is user-friendly, and the web protection is good. The tool is highly stable. The product is scalable. The technical support is good. We chose Sophos Cyberoam UTM because their focus on security research is higher compared to other brands. It's an all-in-one solution with antivirus, EDR, wireless protection, and web protection integrated into one box. The initial setup was straightforward."
"There are plenty of features available, such as Full Guard and WAN."
"User and network policies to be managed on a single screen with powerful filtering and search options."
"The solution works perfectly without any users."
"Technical support is good but the response time could be faster."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"They've become quite expensive."
"It would be ideal if they had some sort of GUI interface for troubleshooting and diagnostics."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"The user interface could be improved."
"Fortinet needs more memory to save the log files. We need it to save the logs on the hardware and not in the cloud. I know this feature is available in FortiCloud, but if we need this log locally, it is not available."
"The biggest "gotcha" is that if the client purchases what they call the UTM shared bundle, which has unified threat management on both, it's not as easy to manage if you have more than one firewall."
"The user interface for management could be improved."
"Pricing for the gateways is too high as compared to the other vendors."
"Complex and not very easy to use."
"There is no email security."
"The level and availability of training should be improved."
"It's my understanding that the initial setup is a bit complex. There's a bit of a learning curve if you're trying to set it up for the first time and you aren't familiar with the product."
"There are some issues compared to other products. Ease of use is one."
"The pricing could always be more competitive."
"It should have a better VPN client. We decided to find something different than Cyberoam because of the VPN client software. It would be nice to have a user interface not only in English but also in different languages."
"Smaller CR15 units don’t have a hard disc or built in IView software. These units could do with that feature."
"The product fails to provide proper reports, making it an area where improvements are required."
"While the security features are excellent, they could be improved."
"The blocking needs to be improved."
"Cyberoam configuration is done through the browser, which is one of the places that viruses spread."
"Maybe network traffic analysis for malware and malicious behavior."
"The VPN is an area that can be improved."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 1st in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 279 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 9th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 81 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point NGFW writes "Good antivirus protection and URL filtering with very good user identification capabilities". 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 NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and Azure Firewall, 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 NGFW 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.
