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."This version is stable. I don't have any issues with this solution, in our environment, it works well."
"The initial installation is very straightforward."
"The integration with Active Directory is one of the good features. Most of the customers are now looking for the Single Sign-on feature. So, being able to integrate Active Directory with the firewall is useful. It is also easy."
"The security features that they have are quite good. On top of that, their licensing model is quite nice where they don't charge you anything for the SD-WAN functionality for the firewall."
"The solution is very easy to understand. It's not overly complex."
"The features that we have found most valuable are the SSL VPN and the User Portal."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"I only deal with it from a security analyst's point of view. I don't really get into the features of the actual FortiGate. From the security point of view, it works, and it does its job."
"The notifications, the visibility, and the deployment are the most valuable. It could be packaged in such a way that it took a lot of time and resources off our hands, so it was more efficient."
"The product offers an easy and nice way to manage the gateways, similar to on-prem hardware. It has packet filtering features. Our security operations are faster and less prone to errors. We selected CloudGuard Network Security due to its visibility."
"The solution is easier to manage than an on-premise firewall. It is easy to manage. The use of dynamic objects for these gateways made it easy to create the right rules and the right policies. Integration with Azure is also easy where we have to just add the subnets. In an on-premise setup, we have to add everything from scratch. We can automate a lot of actions."
"Auto Scaling is one of the features that make me want to choose CloudGuard over actual HW."
"Any kind of cloud environment anywhere can be protected through this effortlessly."
"The solution is reliable."
"The Capsule solution and application filters are the most valuable. It is pretty straightforward to implement, and it also has good stability and scalability. Their technical support is also really good."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring. We can easily monitor what kind of stuff comes over to our network and we can then check the dashboard and work accordingly."
"The tool's robust features allow for the customization of policies, objects, and firewall settings."
"I'm more inclined towards the conventional firewall. So for me, I'm more geared towards the standard firewall type functionalities as well as the web application firewall because that seems to work fine."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It is a VPN that serves all your needs as an application firewall."
"Our customers find it economical and offers good security. These two features are key. Ease of installation and implementation are also key factors."
"The solution has good load balancers."
"Its portal is user-friendly. I am able to manage the user data and access control through this device."
"The solution is easy to integrate."
"The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response."
"I would like to see improvements in the support from Fortinet. Here in the Philippines, whenever we have problems with a Fortinet product, we mostly ask for support from distributors and resellers and not directly from Fortinet."
"The feedback that I have received is that the performance could be better, and the user experience is not as good compared to a previous solution we used. It could be more user-friendly. Of course, it still works fine for our operations."
"The solution needs to improve its integration with cybersecurity."
"We'd like more management across other integrations."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding enhancements to FortiMail, FortiSOAR, and FortiDeceptor."
"Fortinet FortiGate is not very easy to use. The navigation could be improved to make it easier to use."
"Most clients nowadays tend to move to the cloud and their data security is key. If CloudGuard could be able to give the client that full visibility of how their data is protected on the cloud, then that would be a great selling point for Check Point."
"The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"Regarding CloudGuard Network Security's integration with various resources like application gateways and application-based security groups, there's room for exploring dynamic access in those areas. A significant concern is the upgrade process. Unlike an in-place upgrade, upgrading the tool in Azure requires deploying a new resource, which can be hectic and less reliable. We have to spend something new to have the tool's latest version."
"The product can still grow."
"The documentation has been rough. Being able to do it yourself can be hit or miss given the constraints of the documentation."
"The initial setup is difficult. It took me three tries to get it right. The setup took two or three hours."
"I haven't used CloudGuard Network Security in the past couple of years as I moved out of the network security role. However, based on my previous experience, there were improvements, especially in in-place upgrades. Regarding cost, it might be potentially cheaper considering resource utilization in Azure and VM costs, but licensing could be improved, possibly moving towards a simpler model."
"The user interface can be improved."
"Smaller CR15 units don’t have a hard disc or built in IView software. These units could do with that feature."
"VPN configuration is not very swift."
"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 VPN is an area that can be improved."
"On-box sandstorm should be available. As of now, it is from their cloud."
"The solution should improve its scalability because it cannot support enterprise networks."
"It isn't missing anything."
"The reporting part could be more user-friendly for troubleshooting and identifying network issues. It should be more easy for a normal user to identify the problem in their network."
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.