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.
"Advanced routing (RIP, OSPF, BGP, PBR). It gives you a seamless and simple integration into a large network."
"The IPS is good. It protect my network from attackers."
"I like that you are able to manage FortiGate from the FortiManager to create a more centralized environment."
"Fortinet has a very good solution for Secure SD-WAN. One very good feature is that they have robust and simple FortiOS through which they provide all solutions. That's their strength. There's not much complexity involved with the Secure SD-WAN solution of Fortinet as compared to Cisco's solution, which has a lot of flexibility but complexity also comes with that flexibility."
"The pricing is excellent. It's much less expensive than Cisco."
"Its performance in fulfilling our requirements has been satisfactory."
"The solution is scalable."
"Fortigate represents a really scalable way of delivering perimeter network security, some level of layer 7 security, WAF, and also a way to create a meshed ADVPN solution."
"Easy to deploy with a simple configuration."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"What I like best about Meraki MX is that it's easy to deploy remotely. The product works. It has automatic updates. I also like that Meraki MX is a brilliant device. You turn it on, stick the key in there, activate it, and then you're done. Meraki MX does what my customers need at the end of the day, so I also like that."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"They have very good technical support and I have relied heavily on them."
"The cloud management system is really valuable."
"Deployment takes no more than one working day."
"The solution is good for load balancing."
"Price-wise the solution offers acceptable rates. You can find cheaper solutions on the market but when you go cheaper you have fewer features. Today, based on iQuate market the price is very reasonable and affordable, and it's good if you get a good discount. Discounts can be offered by the vendor. If it's a competitive upgrade which means the customer is upgrading from another vendor, Sophos provides extra discount so they can win the deal. In general, it is a good price."
"Web publishing is important, as well as the importance of the antivirus patch."
"Great interface and in-built help is very intuitive."
"The user interface is very good. It's already quite simple and easy to use."
"Sophos CG is cost-effective, which makes it really suitable for SMB. If you want basic security and more embedded features, go with Sophos XG."
"A valuable feature involves the solution's manageability."
"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."
"We've had good experiences with technical support."
"We would like to see a better training platform implemented."
"In the future, I would like to see improvements made to cloud-based management."
"It needs to improve its ISP load balancing."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"There are a lot of bugs I have found in the solution and it is difficult to upgrade. These areas need improvement."
"We would like to see better pricing."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having more capabilities for troubleshooting VPN connections. For example, I do get some feedback about the current status, but I could use some history and logging of important events. The information is logged in our Syslog server, but I could use that information from the device. If they could provide a GUI to have some more insight on what's going with my VPN would be useful."
"Expensive licensing and firewall stops immediately working if the license is not renewed at expiration date."
"The security is not as strong as it could be"
"Meraki MX firewalls are great for small to medium-sized businesses, but other solutions are better for enterprise-sized companies."
"It would be nice to get detailed logging information without third-party software."
"Meraki tech support staff have a lot more visibility into your network than you do, which is frustrating at times. I understand the approach is to keep the dashboard easier to understand. This will frustrate more advanced users at times."
"Management can be improved in Meraki MX."
"You cannot use switching behaviors as you see on the Meraki switch."
"Load balancing options and ability to manage a couple of Internet connections."
"Our clients use Karios, and while it integrates well with it, the integration could be improved."
"The only issue that Sophos XG now needs to improve is the product's reporting capability."
"Even though things work on the back end, we have encountered bugs in the solution."
"Support for this product is something that is really important, and it needs to improve."
"Technical support is difficult to access."
"When it comes to improvements that the vendor can make, we see that the cloud integration for managing all the firewalls is essentially a replacement of the on-prem version we had and is not sufficiently mature."
"In the Firewall, the Intrusion Prevention System can be improved."
"Sophos needs improvements made to the console, such as host entry or defining rules directly from it."
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).