We performed a comparison between Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] and Sophos Cyberoam UTM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."FortiGate SD-WAN facilitated a smooth transition for our customers between their two internet service providers, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity without any downtime."
"Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"It's great for capturing the traffic and troubleshooting it."
"The license management is very valuable. You can get a new license each year, or you can enroll every two to four years. You can get the logs, and you will get the information on the risk in your network and the entire organization. With this information, you can take action on your actives, computers, or devices. You can bring your own device as an SSE."
"FortiGate firewalls are user-friendly, and I like the security profiling features."
"Fortinet FortiGate is easy to use. Anyone can easily maintain it."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"It works very well. It has a lot of different functionalities. Its cost is also fine for our customers."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"The most outstanding feature is being able to centralize each of the functions in a single device."
"The UTM platform has been the most valuable."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"It provides visibility and drives organizational security."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"The filtering was very good."
"I find Sophos Cyberoam UTM very good. I like the feature of being able to block off Mac IDs that host users. For example, you have a Mac or Windows laptop and you created a hotspot. Other devices like mobiles and tablets e.g. iPads connected to that hotspot. We can block those devices that connected to the hotspot we created, only through Sophos. It's a good feature we didn't find in other UTMs."
"Web and content filtering are valuable in preventing people from abusing the network and pushing up the bandwidth price."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution is easy to integrate."
"It is very easy to use."
"Cyberoam UTM's most valuable feature is that it can be configured any way you like."
"The solution has good load balancers."
"The firewall feature has different branches, such as extended firewalls."
"The process of configuring firewall rules appears excessively complex."
"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."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"Technical support for this solution can be improved."
"There are some tiny bugs that sometimes affect the operations. In the past revision of it, there was a bug. Because of the bug, we had to downgrade the version. It happened only with the last revision."
"FortiOS is not simple."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"The interface needs improvement."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"Technical support was very bad because the supplier who sold it to us, wasn't very supportive, and he wouldn't giving us direct links to the OEM."
"What has been the issue of firewalls is they ask me for policies and content filtering application control and all these features that are now part of Harmony."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"The solution could be improved if there was a better way to report. The reporting functionality is not really good. Even though it's not the major function. Maybe adding a way to make a custom report."
"I am not able to see a demo."
"I would like to see a better content management pack and also the website searching should be better."
"There are some issues with logs and report limitations."
"SD-WAN should be included in the tool."
"The documentation is not straightforward."
"The product needs to improve its pricing."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM has room for improvement in specific rules-based objects and redesign. The solution also needs to improve in adding rules and policies, including renewing and finding policies."
"VPN configuration is not very swift."
"I don't know whether this will be included in an upgrade, but I would like to get the user utility, like seeing where the users are using more of the data."
Earn 20 points
Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls with 2 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 27 reviews. Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is rated 8.2, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] writes "Great firewalls, VPN, and Intrusion prevention capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "A versatile solution that comes with valuable security features like geofencing and traffic shaping". Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Sophos XG.
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.