We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW and Sophos XG based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Check Point NGFW is praised for its extensive security features, centralized management, and virtualization capabilities. It is highly regarded in terms of comprehensive protection and adaptability. Sophos XG is known for its usability, user-friendly interface, and straightforward installation process. Both options provide robust threat defense and the ability to expand as needed.
Check Point NGFW, needs to improve various aspects, including integration with other infrastructures, hardware upgrades, cost and pricing, stability and security, UI, complexity issues, redundancy options, and memory management. Sophos XG needs improvements in antivirus features, graphical interface and performance, bandwidth management and VPN capabilities, reporting and user management, support and response time, and specific issues and feature requests.
Service and Support: Some customers have found Check Point NGFW's customer service to be helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement. Sophos XG's support has received both positive and negative feedback. Some customers have found it to be good and helpful, while others have been dissatisfied with unhelpful and unresponsive support.
Ease of Deployment: The initial setup for Check Point NGFW can range in difficulty, with some users finding it simple while others find it more challenging. Knowledge and experience may be required for certain configurations and migrations. The initial setup for Sophos XG is generally seen as uncomplicated and straightforward, although some users may struggle if they are unfamiliar with the product.
Pricing: Check Point NGFW is known for its high setup cost, particularly when compared to other products. Users find it challenging to add new licensing to existing devices, especially for larger enterprise-level devices. Sophos XG provides flexible pricing options based on the required functionality, offering reasonable and competitive pricing, particularly for educational institutions.
ROI: Check Point NGFW stands out for its cost savings, simplicity, and effective security enforcement. Sophos XG offers a high ROI by reducing support expenses and enhancing security practices.
Comparison Results: Sophos XG is the favored product when compared to Check Point NGFW. Users find the initial setup of Sophos XG to be simple. They appreciate the functionality and user interface of Sophos XG, as well as its extensive protection against threats. The pricing for Sophos XG is considered fair and the technical support is satisfactory.
"SSL-VPN is very useful for us and has been very reliable."
"The reporting and monitoring are very good."
"Overall security features and performance routing is good."
"This solution has helped our organization by having strong functions and a reliable firewall."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the APIs. They are the most widely known."
"What's most important is the ease of use."
"The interface is very good."
"The Intrusion Prevention System and the web filtering are both working well."
"The activation of additional features is very easy and well documented."
"They have very good support. In critical scenarios, they provide us very quick solutions, are very well-trained, and have a good knowledge about the product. That is what we expect from them."
"It filters unwanted traffic."
"We do not have any problems with stability."
"The uncomplicated configuration ensures that mistakes are avoided and rules are easily audited."
"The event logs are relatively informative and can provide information on why traffic was accepted or rejected."
"It's offering great security while also being rather easy to manage."
"The most valuable features are application control, regulation, and threat prevention."
"The performance of Sophos XG is generally good and it is stable."
"Most of the features Sophos XG has are valuable. However, if I have two different ISP, I'm able to create an automatic switch between the two ISPs. I can do the same thing for the cloud as well. If I have two subnets coming from the cloud, I'm able to create a type of switch between both of them where if there is traffic on one and has the traffic drop, I'm able to switch to the other ISP without any problems. It's a normal feature and I get to enjoy the ability to switch between services with no issues."
"I have found the feature allowing you to manage everything from a centralized location beneficial."
"So far, I'm happy that they have recently added a firewall role, so I feel a little more comfortable with the security. The threat management is good."
"This solution does everything and anything a firewall can do."
"The solution seems to be very easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is that it scans all of the data for any kind of malware."
"The product is very easy to explore. It has a very good layout."
"Some configuration elements cannot be easily altered once created."
"A couple of things I've seen that need improvement, especially in terms of a hard coding. The driver-level active moment really is out-of-the-box and we have to have contact the customer support and sometimes it is difficult to resolve."
"The solution is very expensive."
"Technical support for this solution can be improved."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve the protection, it did not prevent us from being attacked. Additionally, Fortinet FortiGate could provide more features for WAF devices. I should not have to purchase two solutions, it would be a benefit to combine these features into one solution."
"This product needs to have an analysis feature, rather than having the analysis done through the integration of a different product."
"The support system could be improved."
"The tool’s architecture could be improved a bit."
"The source package is a bit more expensive than its competitors."
"We looked very closely at ArcSight's solution because it's a multi-vendor solution. With ArcSight we could have Check Point, we could have RSA, we could have any brand and integrate several brands, from a security point of view. With Check Point, you cannot do so, you can integrate with Check Point products."
"In terms of new features, maybe it would help if we could start to manage all the stuff in the cloud and not in the on-prem servers. The management side could also be faster when you install policies. But other than that, I'm satisfied."
"Finding support is a little bit hard."
"The antivirus Check Point offers could be better when compared to competitors' firewalls. Updates should be more frequent."
"Currently, some prices are very expensive."
"The presentation of the reports need to be more user-friendly."
"Everything is working as expected at this moment, but the anti-spam solution in Sophos XG needs to be improved. It needs more granular features and more stability. The anti-spam solution currently doesn't have many features, and we would like to have more features. At this moment, there is no expression filter for anti-spam. We need something to be able to filter subjects or attachments in emails based on the keyword. Sometimes, there is an issue with anti-spam, and Sophos XG suddenly stops processing incoming or outgoing emails. The only solution for this issue is to restart the appliance. Their support should be improved. It takes a long time to escalate a support case from level one to level two."
"While it is a secure solution, I believe it could be improved."
"They should include fiber ports on smaller product models and the tools should be improved for scalability."
"The user interface could be improved and more bandwidth management would be helpful."
"It's easy to use, but it's hard to configure exact settings. They need to make it easier to access advanced features."
"Better instructions should be provided as part of the technical support so that we can understand the functionalities. This will help us to troubleshoot faster."
"I think that the main area for improvement is the quality assurance of the updates."
"This solution could be improved with more effective bandwidth. I found that when I enable DDoS detection for our clients, bandwidth is reduced. If DDoS detection is disabled, the bandwidth will be high, but it isn't secure. We recommend that customers enable DDoS detection, but if they need high bandwidth, we recommend Palo Alto and FortiGate instead of Sophos."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 277 reviews while Sophos XG is ranked 7th in Firewalls with 192 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Sophos XG is rated 8.2. 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 XG writes "Easy to use and deploy with an improved pricing structure in place". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense, Azure Firewall and OPNsense, whereas Sophos XG is most compared with Netgate pfSense, OPNsense, Sophos XGS, SonicWall TZ and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Check Point NGFW 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.