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."We use a lot of function on the IPS and it works well for us."
"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 product is very stable, easy to troubleshoot, and configure, so it has reduced the time it takes for support."
"The most valuable feature is the FortiManager for centralized management."
"The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"The pipe filter application is an outstanding feature."
"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."
"The flexibility and ease of configuration are the most valuable features."
"The solution could improve to have a DLP feature."
"The most valuable feature of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the increased mail protection including spam."
"We are using gateways, and I appreciate the high-availability gateways they have. They stand out more than the competitors."
"The central management feature is a big plus, allowing us to manage both local and cloud gateways from one platform."
"It makes securing our cloud workload super easy, and we are able to push any sort of policy changes we need pretty quickly"
"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."
"As per the solution's blade design, there are many options. For example, you have to buy a UTM blade and an advanced malware blade, etc. If the blade license is there, we can configure from the firewall GUI."
"It is scalable. It's a cloud solution, so it's easy to implement and manage."
"Content filtering, as this enables me to control that which employees can view at different time quotas."
"The solution works perfectly without any users."
"The product is worth the investment."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM is used for perimeter security, web filtering, intrusion prevention and as a VPN."
"I believe it's the advanced security software that offers SMPP protection for the agent."
"I like the SSL VPN connection. Cyberoam works well for controlling users and authenticating their connection to the internet."
"Cyberoam UTM's most valuable feature is that it can be configured any way you like."
"We are using it as a security shield. It does not allow access before that in case we have restricted a few things from users, so it helps me in that."
"In some cases, its initial setup could be hard for customers."
"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."
"There are mainly two areas of improvement in Fortinet FortiGate— the licensing cost and the timing of upgrading licenses for boxes."
"The cloud features and integration could be improved."
"I would like some automated custom reporting."
"I would like to see improvements with the antivirus and IPS as they are not working properly all the time."
"The cloud management and automation capability could be improved."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"It can be difficult to install properly without prior training"
"The challenge mainly revolves around the slower functionality of virtual IP switching in Azure Virtual Network compared to on-premise solutions. On-premise, switching between clusters is faster, taking only a few seconds, while in Azure, it can extend up to five minutes. The downtime is a concern for us."
"Check Point has a history of moving fast with software release and upgrade cycles which are difficult to keep up with at times."
"The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"There is room for improvement, especially concerning the integration with the management center. It would be beneficial if tasks that currently require scripts could be performed directly from the GUI."
"The relationship between AWS and Check Point could be better. We had issues related to the type of instance and how it interconnects with AWS or cloud-native solutions. We overcame the pain points that we had, and now, AWS is evolving in a way that will facilitate how Check Point works. Our pain points were minimized, but they were there."
"The documentation has been rough. Being able to do it yourself can be hit or miss given the constraints of the documentation."
"At CPX, we heard that we can see all the things on the same platform. That is what we have been asking for, and hopefully, we are going to start seeing it this year."
"I would say there's room for improvement in terms of the GUI. Because it is better than some of the other standard firewalls. They have the drag and drop features."
"Once in a while, an unwanted email will slip in. You have to set your parameters to avoid that happening, but once in a while, an email has slipped past firewall. Once you update the firmware, you notice that it doesn't happen. If an email slips in, I get a little bit worried. I do get the report, but you just don't want that situation happening in the first place."
"The product strategy of the manufacturer is strange. I don't understand what they are doing in that regard."
"Sophos VPN connectivity could be improved, as it can be lengthy, and users take longer to connect"
"The product needs to improve its pricing."
"In my experience the solution can be easier to configure with more documentation, we need more training."
"The implementation policy needs improvment."
"It should have better VPN protection. Some of the VPN applications are not blocked by this firewall. Some VPNs are able to get through this firewall, which is why I am planning to replace this firewall with a good one in the near future."
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.
