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."Web filtering and two-factor authentication are great features."
"Some of the valuable features are the firewall, IPS, web filter, and gateway capabilities. Additionally, it is easy to use and flexible."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"The security features are about the best that I've seen anywhere."
"Good anti-malware and web filtering features."
"This solution has helped our organization by having strong functions and a reliable firewall."
"The inspection and web security features are most valuable."
"Anti-Spam web content filterinG."
"The visibility is most valuable. It allows us to see all of our devices from one place, and it gives us the ability to manage push updates and things like that from one place."
"The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features."
"The solution provides a centralized management console for easy administration and monitoring of security policies and events, making it easy for the security team."
"It is dynamic and agile, and its features and utilities continuously improve and evolve."
"I like the tool's ability to manage cloud traffic locally without routing it through our data centers."
"The solution could improve to have a DLP feature."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can start off with a simple firewall and expand it to UTM."
"Auto-scaling and zero touch are valuable features."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"The solution works perfectly without any users."
"Cyberoam UTM's most valuable feature is that it can be configured any way you like."
"The product has helped control bandwidth utilization, as well as enhanced connectivity and security to remote locations."
"The firewall feature has different branches, such as extended firewalls."
"The product, itself, doesn't seem to have any bugs or glitches."
"SD-WAN and IPSec features are valuable to me."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The scalability could be better."
"The stability of Fortinet FortiGate could improve."
"FortiOS is not simple."
"The logs need to be better. They need to be more visible and easier to access."
"The room for improvement is about the global delivery time period. Usually I need to wait for almost one month to deliver it overseas. So if you can shorten the deliver time it'd be great."
"They should make the rule sets more understandable for the end user. When you're trying to explain to somebody how a computer network is secured, sometimes it's difficult for an end user or customer to understand. If there was a way to make the terminology more accessible to the end user, the set up could be easier. They should translate the technical jargon to an easily relatable and understandable conversation for the end user, the customer, that would be brilliant. Particularly in an environment where the IT structure is audited regularly, there's always pressure from the auditor to up the standards and up the security and you get your USCERT's that come out and there's a warning about this and the customer will want to lock out so much and when you apply it they run into issue where they can't search the internet or print to their remote office. Of course they can't print to your remote office, they just locked it up. They should make the language more understandable for the customer. If there's a product out there that made the jargon understandable to John Q. Public, I would buy that."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"The solution is very expensive."
"In future releases, I would like to see the data loss prevention (DLP) feature could scale along with the virtual machine scale sets."
"Clustering in Azure is a bit different, not using the Check Point cluster but relying on load balancing. It's not as instant as I'm used to; in Azure, it might take around half a minute to a minute, and during this time, services could be down. The delay is attributed to Azure using its load balancing mechanisms instead of the Check Point cluster."
"The operations require skilled manpower with extended experience of working with networking systems for better results."
"It needs to cover additional kinds of infrastructure, like containers and serverless options. It's somewhat limited in that area."
"There is room for improvement regarding the technical support provided."
"There is a limitation with the version upgrade. We are using version 81.10 and from what I understand, it is problematic to upgrade this version. I do not know if that is true."
"While Check Point does offer some VWAN offerings, they appear to be more static and less tailored to cloud-native environments compared to Palo Alto's dynamic and flexible approach."
"The initial deployment using the ARM template in Azure was straightforward, but migrating to Terraform added complexity, although we managed to make it work."
"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 solution is at its end of life and some of the appliances are finishing."
"The technical support response time could be faster."
"The price is obviously a more sensitive area to focus on."
"The solution's pricing could be a problem for some small businesses."
"The reporting should be improved as well as the backup."
"There is a lot or room for improvement, because it is still not a fourth or fifth generation firewall. It lacks security features."
"I had an issue when I was trying to stop a user from using too much bandwidth while I was using Azure, I was not able to stop them."
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.