We performed a comparison between 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."The reporting and monitoring are very good."
"The features that we have found most valuable are the SSL VPN and the User Portal."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"The most valuable features are that it is very simple to configure and to manage."
"There are great templates, so you don't have to customize them if you don't want to. You do have the option to custom create some folders and some reports, however, with what is there, you don't really need to go through extra effort, as they already give you a lot of predefined views of reports and so forth."
"The features that prevent internet connections, the filtering are the most valuable because we did not have any internet protection before."
"It is simple to manage, and there are a lot of functionalities in the same box."
"This solution has helped our organization by having strong functions and a reliable firewall."
"Workflows across the company ecosystem have can flow smoothly without experiencing any challenges."
"The feature most valuable to me is the NDTX blade that Check Point provides, and I like how the solution is not vulnerable."
"It is dynamic and agile, and its features and utilities continuously improve and evolve."
"The solution could improve to have a DLP feature."
"The solution helps protect network security by offering threat prevention, addressing vulnerabilities, and utilizing blades."
"The most valuable features are the VPN Blade, IPS Blade, the URL filtering, and the Applications Control Blade."
"This software is great in overall performance since it can locate any trouble across the networking system and provide solutions before it affects workflows."
"The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features."
"The dashboard is very good-looking and offers maximum features. If a customer's website has a problem, we can guide them over the phone because they can easily find the specific option on the dashboard. That's why we suggest buying Sophos."
"The product, itself, doesn't seem to have any bugs or glitches."
"The solution is easy to integrate."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM is used for perimeter security, web filtering, intrusion prevention and as a VPN."
"The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company."
"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."
"The product has helped control bandwidth utilization, as well as enhanced connectivity and security to remote locations."
"The most valuable features are the firewall section, the VPN, and how you control live users."
"The search tool needs improvement. It's very difficult to search for policies right now."
"The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement."
"Reporting is limited to providing an external appliance for improving the reporting capabilities of the FortiAnalyzer. It does not offer a central management and is also sold separably as an appliance."
"The price of FortiGate should be reduced because there are some other leading products that are cheaper."
"I use the FortiGate 60D model and realized the 300Mbps bandwidth limitation. Because it is a product that offers many services, I think it could have greater bandwidth capacity."
"Fortinet could improve the windows opener or the virtual IP solutions for opening windows. The virtual IP settings need improvement as firewalls are trending in new development directions."
"Fortinet currently has many products bundled with FortiGate including the basic firewall and load balancer, and I think that that they need to have separate product portfolios for each of these specialized services."
"Currently, without the additional reporting module, we only have access to basic reporting."
"While today we can manage some scopes, there are still some segments in the OSI layer we cannot manage."
"We have the product deployed on Azure China. One crucial concern is the version limitation; unfortunately, in Azure China, we are restricted to running version R80. Our architecture has a Load Balancer, VMSS CloudGuard, etc. The duplication in this setup prevents the application from seeing the original client IP. This poses a problem for certain applications that require the original IP for login purposes. Although we managed a workaround with a different architecture involving a WAF, it is not as straightforward as the standard Azure setup."
"The initial deployment using the ARM template in Azure was straightforward, but migrating to Terraform added complexity, although we managed to make it work."
"Check Point support, beyond CloudGuard, does need some improvement."
"Micro-Segmentation functionality for EAST-WEST traffic is not native and requires integration with a third-party OEM."
"Check Point Virtual Systems is a complete solution, but pricing can be better."
"With the incorporation of a lot of AI and machine learning, they can build some sort of a matrix for low-level threats or low-level things that require attention. There can be automation of those tasks so that we don't have to take more time and effort. There should be machine learning to eliminate level-one types of tasks."
"This application can be more integrated with web application firewalls. Better integrations would provide more granularity, which would be helpful for focusing on the application itself and preventing attacks. It would be good to include the cross-domain search. If you have multiple firewalls that are managed on the same platform and you want to check who is using some particular objects or where a specific ID is being used, it should provide an option for this kind of search instead of having to check one by one on each firewall."
"Needs a mail alert/notification when the device loses any of its connections, during ISP redundancy implementation."
"The product had a hang issue. We needed to reboot, recreate the image, and reconfigure the previous image because the product hanged frequently."
"The VPN is an area that can be improved."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM could improve by adding VPN site-to-site capabilities. The correct version does not work with Microsoft Azure Cloud."
"In my experience the solution can be easier to configure with more documentation, we need more training."
"The documentation is not straightforward."
"Technical support could be faster."
"The solution is at its end of life and some of the appliances are finishing."
CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 54 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 27 reviews. CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.4, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CloudGuard Network Security writes "Does what it is designed for and matches what we have on-prem". 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". CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Sophos XG. See our 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.