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."The simplicity of the product is great. It's very easy to use, which is a compliment we get all the time in terms of feedback."
"Some of the key features of the solution is that it has good reporting, you can receive many details from the connection, for example, clients and website information."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"The simplicity of the configuration and the stability of the product are most valuable. The VPN concentrator is very useful."
"Customers are more inclined towards FortiGate because of application control, web filtering, and anti-spam features. The support from the FortiGate team is good, and price-wise, it is affordable."
"Our security improved from being able to put in rules and close off unwanted traffic."
"It's great for capturing the traffic and troubleshooting it."
"I'm pretty happy with its reliability. It is also very scalable."
"We have unified management. It is one of the advantages of this product."
"The VPN features in CloudGuard Network Security have been the most valuable for us."
"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."
"I like the firewall and the virtual machine. I also like that it's compatible with Amazon Web Services and Azure."
"We are using gateways, and I appreciate the high-availability gateways they have. They stand out more than the competitors."
"I like how straightforward it is and simple it is to implement in the cloud."
"SSL/TLS traffic inspection features are used for advanced threat prevention against secure SSL traffic."
"The endpoint VPN is super stable. The routing is also very good. We tried a competing product first, but we could not make it work. We came across CloudGuard. The network routing across different virtual networks in Azure and AWS was way ahead of any of the other technologies. That helped us be able to cover the whole network using one single cluster."
"We consider the user level and control features of Sophos Cyberoam UTM to be the best."
"The tool is stable."
"It is very easy to use."
"Content filtering, as this enables me to control that which employees can view at different time quotas."
"Web application filtering eases internet access control."
"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."
"I found that the best feature of Sophos Cyberoam UTM is reporting. Its reporting feature is excellent, fast, and easy to prep and launch."
"The VPN is excellent on the solution."
"We'd like more management across other integrations."
"I haven't had a single issue since using Fortinet."
"The solution could have licensing fees reduced in the future."
"The solution can have more features in a single box that can be multi-applied to integrate everything."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve the user interface. There should be more functionality and options through the GUI."
"My only complaint about FortiGate is a lack of QinQ VLAN tunneling. I haven't found this feature in any Fortinet product. You can do this on all Cisco routers, including the smaller models. However, QinQ isn't available on the biggest, most expensive Fortinet units. They still don't have that. I think now we're on software version 6.0, and they still haven't found a solution for QinQ. It isn't a dealbreaker, but that's my main complaint."
"FortiGate support could do some improvements on their IPv6 configuration. Right now it's still in the very early stage for utilizing in an enterprise level network environment."
"There are some complex administration tasks in their administration portal. That needs to be improved."
"CloudGuard Network Security's pricing is expensive. We have encountered issues with its licensing."
"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 setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"There are some usability issues we'd like to see improved."
"Check Point could show us use cases that would help us in Czech and could help us with security threats in our specific country."
"There is room for improvement in addressing bugs and support issues."
"Micro-Segmentation functionality for EAST-WEST traffic is not native and requires integration with a third-party OEM."
"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 product’s pricing has increased by approximately 45% in four months. This particular area needs improvement."
"The VPN is an area that can be improved."
"On-box sandstorm should be available. As of now, it is from their cloud."
"What needs improvement in Sophos Cyberoam UTM is openness in the competition among Sophos partners or any other Sophos product. Another area for improvement in the solution is pricing. It could be cheaper."
"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."
"The Traffic Discovery feature should allow administrators to disconnect unnecessary live connections."
"The policy is a bit too vague."
"The product fails to provide proper reports, making it an area where improvements are required."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 119 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, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Sophos UTM and SonicWall NSa. 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.
