We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Sophos XGS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is load balancing. It can provide central management and VPNA. Additionally, it has enhanced our security environment."
"The technical support in our region is excellent."
"The solution can scale well."
"I think that the UTM features are the most value, as it truly protects my infrastructure."
"It is quite easy to handle."
"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."
"Consolidated our network environment at all locations, but mainly at our datacenter."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a scalable solution."
"There are many valuable features, such as wireless cloud features."
"Most of the features in Palo Alto are very valuable."
"Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' IPS is more complete and is very good. This is a user-friendly solution that is easy to install, and it provides the best protection."
"The most valuable features are the IPS/IDS subscriptions."
"I like that Palo Alto does a good job of keeping the firewall updated with the latest threat signatures."
"The configuration is very simple."
"The most important thing is that it's really user-friendly. I have almost stopped using the CLI because I like the graphical interface. You can do whatever you want on a single screen, including all the configuration and implementation, using Panorama. You don't have to switch from one place to another."
"It has a unique approach to packet processing. It has single-pass architecture. We can easily perform policy lookups, application decoding, and integration or merging. This can be all done with a single pass. It effectively reduces the amount of processing required to perform multiple actions. This is the main advantage of using Palo Alto."
"The most valuable features of Sophos XGS for me are XGS IPS, SD-WAN, VPN setup, email protection, and integration with endpoint security."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos XGS is its ease of use."
"The solution is easy to use and configure, once you know how to apply the policies."
"The most valuable features of Sophos XGS are a set of functionalities that are quite commendable, they call it synchronized security, where all the solutions share defense lines with each other."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The feature that I find most valuable is the synchronized security option where the endpoint talks to the firewall."
"The solution offers more antimalware and antivirus feeds than others."
"Sophos XGS's best features are its VPN and ATPR1 cert protection."
"We would like to see better pricing."
"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."
"The cloud features can be improved."
"The UI could be improved."
"It should come integrated or have its own type of network monitor tool in a module. There should just be one package, and you are good to go."
"Fortinet FortiGate can be integrated with different platforms. They have integrations in place, but I can't say they're 100%."
"The support from Fortinet FortiGate could improve. They are not easily accessible when we need them. They could improve their response time."
"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."
"I would like a collaboration system and reporting ASA policy needs to be smarter."
"It is a complete product, but the SSL inspection feature requires some improvements. We need to deploy certificates at each end point to completely work out the UTM solutions. If you enable SSL encryption, it is a tedious process. It takes a lot of time to deploy the certificates to all endpoints. Without SSL inspection, UTM features will not work properly. So, we are forced to enable this SSL inspection feature."
"The tech support was once great, but now it is poor. The tech support has gone south. It is really difficult. I had a Priority 1 case last a week in their queue, and after multiple complaints, I finally got somebody to take the case. These are things that are unacceptable in the business world. They could train their employees better."
"The pricing could be improved upon."
"Need improvement with their logs, especially the command line interface."
"Surfacing actionable intelligence right away could be better. You have to dig far to get some of the information. If the solution could surface the two or three things out of the 10,000 a day that we really need to deal with, it would be helpful."
"The solution would benefit from having a dashboard."
"Once in a while, they have new features being released that can be buggy. My criticism is more general to all sorts of network or security devices. In general, everybody is releasing less-tested software. Then, it usually ends up that the first few customers who get a new release need to end up troubleshooting it."
"The customer service response time can be improved."
"In version 18 of Sophos XGS, the log details are not very good. However, in version 19 they are more detailed. The Fortinet FortiGate has better detail overall compared to Sophos XGS. They provide updates to the solution frequently, but they do not fix the problems that exist."
"The solution could be easier to manage and configure."
"There can be lag time when updating an operating policy."
"Sophos XGS could improve the price."
"Compared to Fortinet, the cost is high."
"Reporting could be improved. The structure could be better because most of the reports aren't detailed."
"Level one technical support is not good at all and needs to be improved."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 164 reviews while Sophos XGS is ranked 17th in Firewalls with 62 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6, while Sophos XGS is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos XGS writes "Easy to use, simple to learn, and offers great reporting". Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Sangfor NGAF, whereas Sophos XGS is most compared with Sophos XG, OPNsense, Netgate pfSense, WatchGuard Firebox and Meraki MX. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. Sophos XGS 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.