We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and Sophos Cyberoam UTM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Unified Threat Management (UTM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Fortinet FortiGate's reliability is valuable."
"FortiGate firewalls are user-friendly, and I like the security profiling features."
"I like that they have given me a solution at a fair price."
"The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"Layer-3 firewall and routing are the most valuable features."
"This version is stable. I don't have any issues with this solution, in our environment, it works well."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"The dashboard I have found the most valuable in Fortinet FortiGate."
"We consolidated from three management consoles and three clusters to only one, which is a big improvement."
"Workflows across the company ecosystem have can flow smoothly without experiencing any challenges."
"The product has allowed us to develop applications from the cloud - even with large environments and well-segmented security lines."
"Check Point CloudGuard is quick to deploy and easy for the customer to use."
"We find all the features valuable, particularly the firewall, application control, URL filtering, and HTTPS detection."
"The most valuable feature for us is the cluster support."
"Auto Scaling is one of the features that make me want to choose CloudGuard over actual HW."
"It improves the availability of engineers to carry out projects."
"The tool is stable."
"Its portal is user-friendly. I am able to manage the user data and access control through this device."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos Cyberoam UTM is the SD-WAN gateway."
"The performance has been good overall."
"There are plenty of features that are valuable in the Sophos Cyberoam UTM. We use all the features, such as email Security, firewall rules, web server security, web devices, web protection."
"The firewall feature has different branches, such as extended firewalls."
"The solution works perfectly without any users."
"The main features I have found best are the load balancer and ease of use."
"The graphical user interface of Fortinet's FortiGate product does not function well with text-based interfaces."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding FortiAnalyzer to its solution, we should not have to use another solution. FortiAnalyzer can provide more detailed information."
"The pricing could be a bit better, especially when you consider how they have the most basic offering priced."
"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."
"Lacks training for new features."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"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."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"The initial setup was a bit complex."
"There is room for improvement regarding the technical support provided."
"In the next release, including VRF support would be highly beneficial."
"The product needs to offer multi-tenancy."
"As an administrator, I can say that among all of the Check Point products I have been working with so far, the Virtual Systems solution is one of the most difficult."
"The only pain points we have had with it were when we did major version upgrades. Rather than being able to do incremental upgrades on those, we had to completely redeploy. I know that has changed recently, but we had some hiccups when we did the upgrades. This is the only issue we have had."
"CloudGuard Network Security's pricing is expensive. We have encountered issues with its licensing."
"We miss full blade support for all blades that are compatible with the cluster. Especially notable is the lack of support for Identity Awareness in active standby environments for customers. In our setup, transitioning to Connective clusters would be preferable for maintaining connections during failover situations."
"The following could be improved: Web Filtering using wildcards; clarity regarding the firewall rules; granular reporting features."
"In my experience the solution can be easier to configure with more documentation, we need more training."
"We use different workarounds and find different solutions for it, depending on the client's needs. We shouldn't have to, we should just be able to use the product as it comes with Cyberoam, rather than having to revert to other products."
"There is a lot or room for improvement, because it is still not a fourth or fifth generation firewall. It lacks security features."
"The product needs to improve its pricing."
"Hence, it needs to be easier to configure rules using the solution."
"When it comes to web filtering and application filtering, it does not contain enough signatures to determine all of the sites that need to be blocked."
"The implementation policy needs improvment."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 117 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 81 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "The solution has good threat emulation, threat extraction, and reporting features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "Stable and has a straightforward setup; reporting is fast and easy". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Untangle NG Firewall. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security vs. Sophos Cyberoam UTM report.
See our list of best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Unified Threat Management (UTM) 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.