We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and Sophos XG based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Sophos XG received better user ratings. Although the two solutions are comparable in most areas, Meraki MX lacks a lot of features in comparison with Sophos XG.
"The stability of the solution is excellent, as it is with other Fortinet products."
"Fortinet FortiGate appears to be scalable."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the APIs. They are the most widely known."
"It's very easy to set up, it's very easy to make policies and, for an organization, that means you don't need IT expert in firewalls. You just need to have somebody who knows a little bit of IT, and that's it. With other products, you need someone with a "Masters" degree in firewalls."
"The most important features with FortiGate are the web filter and application controls. We can control our internet usage and use the web filter for application purposes."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiGate was straightforward."
"Anti-Spam web content filterinG."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Quota."
"The cloud management system is really valuable."
"Meraki makes it easy to be secure and know where the holes are to fix them. We have been fixing anything that we have ever found for 20 years. We keep up-to-date with firmware upgrades. We just try to stay on top of everything for security, like maintaining updates and getting rid of old systems. I feel like we're on top of it."
"The simplicity of configuration is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"I use Meraki in my POCs and with my customers as well."
"We work also with domain control (DC) from Microsoft or Amazon. We use a whole virtual appliance with Meraki."
"I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard."
"The dashboard is very intuitive and easy to understand."
"In a week, we can make new policy and view what all our users did."
"The product has a console that is based in the cloud for all their products. In this console, they have email security, firewall security, endpoint security, et cetera. All of the products on offer in the console are very useful for us."
"The tool's most valuable feature is threat protection and DLP features. So far, basic DLP features like content protection and blocking. Furthermore, for remote users, features such as back filtering and application control are available, allowing for command and control from our side. It is very easy to understand policy applications."
"One feature of Sophos XG that I found incredibly beneficial for threat prevention is its endpoint protection."
"The firewall provides network visibility and reporting capabilities, constantly improving over time. It can be integrated with the cloud console, allowing centralized management of multiple firewalls. integration with endpoint security products ensures seamless traffic flow and rule enforcement, even when endpoints are not directly connected to the firewall."
"What I have found most valuable with the Sophos XG is it's a key component of the Intercept X EDR environment. You have to have it to receive the full benefit. If you've you are using Sophos SG firewalls, they're great firewalls and in many ways, I prefer them to the Sophos XG. Since I have set them up, programmed them, and manipulate firewall rules, et cetera, the Sophos SG's a better interface. However, the Sophos XG's very powerful. I prefer it over other solutions I have used, such as Cisco Meraki and SupportNet, I don't like them. They're not very friendly to people who have to set them up and implement them."
"I like the firewall, inbound, and outbound modules the most. The VPN feature also works well. It is very easy to configure rules in Sophos XG. We have got local service here in Zimbabwe from Sophos, which is something that I like a lot. We have got good local support, and they come on-site when we have any challenges. Sophos provides a lot of good training all around Zimbabwe. They are quite dominant here, similar to other solutions like Fortinet or WatchGuard."
"The solution seems pretty stable. We've had no issues so far."
"The SL VPNs are the most valuable feature. I have a lot of systems out of the head office that need to connect to the local networks, and they all connect wirelessly via the Sophos VPN client."
"They should improve high CPU and memory usage that occurs."
"Backup can be improved."
"The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture."
"The solution could be more secure and stable."
"The logging details need to be improved."
"Its customer service could be better."
"The support from Fortinet FortiGate could improve. They are not easily accessible when we need them. They could improve their response time."
"I have to say that the initial setup was complex. The deployment took a few days to get set up. Initially, we were using an IPVanish. We switched to this tool since we thought it would be easier. But it turns out it wasn't easier to set up and run."
"FortiGate is cheaper than Meraki. Even the license renewal is less than Meraki."
"MX can only be managed via a web interface, but I'm accustomed to using a CLI or a graphical interface. I would also like to see more reporting features. It doesn't provide enough information for me to know precisely about some clients."
"The product could incorporate tools like ThousandEyes into the system so we can see things directly."
"The product is quite complex to set up."
"Expensive licensing and firewall stops immediately working if the license is not renewed at expiration date."
"We feel that Cisco provides smaller features, with fewer possibilities versus other solutions out there."
"In the next release, because the security is pretty basic, I think they could include additional security features."
"Pricing is an area where the solution lacks since it is an expensive tool."
"The training manual provided to users lacks proper guidance on configuration procedures."
"Support for this product is something that is really important, and it needs to improve."
"There is an area that is very specific to our setup, where working tools you cannot easily establish a VPN between two internal networks."
"Integration with Active Directory is not reliable."
"Content filtering could be more effective and efficient."
"Let's say I set up a rule to block users from accessing YouTube or Facebook. The rule will only block the HTTP traffic, which is non-secure traffic... The problem comes when you are trying to block, or allow, similar traffic that uses HTTPS. You have to create a certificate and import it into the users' web browsers, whatever they are using... The problem occurs when you're dealing with roaming users who use laptops and have to move between different sites that have different types of policies applied to them. You have to import all sorts of certificates from each site into their browser. Doing so will most probably conflict with something else that is totally irrelevant and cause a problem."
"The only area that requires improvement is scalability."
"It could offer a DNS Filter for blocking botnet networks."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 58 reviews while Sophos XG is ranked 7th in Firewalls with 192 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Sophos XG is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos XG writes "Easy to use and deploy with an improved pricing structure in place". Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, SonicWall TZ, Netgate pfSense and SonicWall NSa, whereas Sophos XG is most compared with Netgate pfSense, OPNsense, Sophos XGS, SonicWall TZ and Sophos UTM. See our Meraki MX vs. Sophos XG report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
Meraki is designed for zero deployments and no in-house firewall specialist personnel. Best to secure Networks like remote offices, branches or home offices. Also to protect Internet Access (your computer accesses the internet).
Sophos is more of a professional firewall, not only protecting internet access but also providing security for publishing services like web servers, data centers, central services. They will need a specialist to install and support them. Therefore offer much more sophisticated protection features.
So, you can't really compare these solutions as they are targeting different markets.
Meraki MX is a small business product and lacks a lot of features compared to Sophos XG/XGS.
- IPsec IKEv2 does not work (it is in the menu, but does not work and can only be enabled by meraki support)
- no SSLVPN or IPsec VPN client. AnyConnect can only be tested with beta firmware.
Cisco Client VPN (L2TP) is a total joke - not sure for who it is meant for?
- no user based firewall rules (for VPN)
- no firewall rule grouping
- no masquerade option for DNAT (sometimes it is very useful if I can do a DNAT with masquerade to another subnet)
- no VLAN tagging support on WAN port (would be usable for IPTV - solvable if WAN is bypassed through a managed switch)
- no multiple IP support on WAN port (Sophos has alias support on every interface, which means that multiple IP addresses can be added on the same LAN or WAN port)
- no LAG or LACP support (would be usable to connect aggregation switch to firewall to bypass more traffic through the MX)
- no DAC cable support for SFP port (why I do have to use optical cable to connect aswitch?)
- no custom IPS policies - only on/off button
- no e-mail protection option (Sophos has it with extra license)
- no web server protection (Sophos has it with extra license)
- no sandstorm option (most firewalls have it with extra license)
- hardware may probably too weak compared to the user count
- no BGP, OSPF routing
- no multiple VPN user groups and LDAP servers
Cisco mx64, for example, has 2 WANs, is very practical and simple for the two services, has a balancing for two internet services and bandwidth control (by groups and users).