We performed a comparison between Check Point NGFW 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."You can create multiple Virtual Domains (VDOMs), which are treated as separate firewall instances."
"Some of the key features of the solution is that it has good reporting, you can receive many details from the connection, for example, clients and website information."
"FortiGate is on the cheaper end, and it offers good value."
"The pipe filter application is an outstanding feature."
"Fortinet FortiGate is scalable for our users. Right now, we have almost 70 users. We do not have any plan to increase our usage of FortiGate. For maintaining the firewall solution, one staff member is enough."
"FortiGate firewalls are easy to manage through a user-friendly web interface. They also have advanced features like DDoS and DLP. However, I wouldn't recommend enabling all of these features on one device because it can cause performance issues."
"We use a lot of function on the IPS and it works well for us."
"This solution made it very easy to manage our bandwidth."
"We found a very successful implementation of the virtual private network client, since, for some time now, everyone has been working from home."
"The spoofing prevention feature is the most valuable feature."
"Check Point's most useful feature is threat prevention and extraction. It was tough to manage seven firewalls and a perimeter solution for IPS, anti-malware, anti-bot, and sandboxing."
"The solution provides better stability and some interesting features such as the ease of throughput expansion."
"The user interface is very cool and easy to use."
"The central management and logging are frankly one of the top selling points."
"There are many useful features including the Office VPN, which provides us with a seamless connection for users who are working remotely."
"Check Point NGFW provides essential security, featuring no-obligation access for secure connections, strong intrusion prevention, and comprehensive antivirus protection."
"Sophos XGS's most valuable feature is content filtering."
"Setup was straightforward. One person is enough for deployment."
"Sophos XGS is profound as a firewall and security product."
"It's very easy to manage this solution."
"The solution is stable."
"Web filtering and intrusion detection are essential features. As system integrators, we also like the dashboard because it's easier to configure all the features."
"The VPN is the best feature."
"XGS' most valuable feature is ransomware protection."
"It should be more stable. There should be full integration within Fortinet products themselves as well as with other third-party products. Especially when you're not dealing with SIEM and the correlation of the security box, we want Fortinet to be able to share that information with as many other products as it can."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"It can be a little bit more user-friendly in terms of policy definition and implementation. It seems a little bit complicated, and it could be simplified."
"I don't really have anything negative to say as far as Fortinet firewalls are concerned. If anything, they can support a user a little bit better. They can stop being so time-sensitive about how much time the support call has taken, and they can help you do it yourself."
"In the balance between links feature normally you can just choose one option to balance. It would be better for the solution to have more than one option, preferably three."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"We would like to have the ability to disable some of the security functionalities."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"The speed of technical support is very slow and is something that should be improved."
"The source package is a bit more expensive than its competitors."
"Sometimes debugging is a hassle."
"The network automation and security automation could be better."
"While it does enhance network security, it tends to consume substantial resources, including CPU, memory, and storage."
"The NAT services part needs improvement. It's not sophisticated. It needs functions like range assignment for NATing. The way you assign a list of IPs for NATing is too simple. It just allows you to use pools."
"It would be ideal to manage everything from one central place."
"I would like there to be a way to run packets that capture more easily in the GUI environment. Right now, if we want to read packet captures, we have to do so from the command line."
"Reporting could be improved. The structure could be better because most of the reports aren't detailed."
"The application is a little slow; it takes five to ten seconds to respond to every click when configuring. If we need to do significant configuration, it can take a lot of time. This might be because we have a low-end machine, and it could be faster with a high-end one."
"The speed of report generation could be improved."
"Sophos' technical support has degraded in the last couple of years. They seem to need to ask a lot of questions, even with simple problems, and take a long time to provide solutions."
"I would like to see a history of the monthly bandwidth utilization, the bandwidth consumption for a period of time."
"I recommend Sophos increase the user capacity of the firewall by 1.5 times. For example, say the firewall can accommodate 1,000 users now, then it should handle a load of 1,500 users."
"It would be useful if Sophos XGS included DDNS-based features."
"The price of Sophos XGS could improve, it is high."
Check Point NGFW is ranked 7th in Firewalls with 279 reviews while Sophos XGS is ranked 18th in Firewalls with 62 reviews. Check Point NGFW is rated 8.8, while Sophos XGS is rated 7.8. 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 XGS writes "Easy to use, simple to learn, and offers great reporting". Check Point NGFW is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense and SonicWall NSa, whereas Sophos XGS is most compared with Sophos XG, OPNsense, Netgate pfSense, WatchGuard Firebox and Sophos UTM. See our Check Point NGFW 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.
