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 pipe filter application is an outstanding feature."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a scalable solution."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of FortiGate is FortiView which provides proactive monitoring."
"The security fabric is excellent."
"The wireless control is helpful."
"The CLI and GUI do a good job of putting a lot at your fingertips."
"The notable features that I have found most valuable are that it includes the antivirus, and also IPS, and even SD-WAN."
"The feature most valuable to me is the NDTX blade that Check Point provides, and I like how the solution is not vulnerable."
"We find all the features valuable, particularly the firewall, application control, URL filtering, and HTTPS detection."
"The most valuable feature for me is that you have just one license. You can test and implement everything you need with one license. You do not need to pay for separate module licenses when you want IPS or other features."
"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."
"Additionally, the centralized reporting and management, accessible through a single pane of glass, offer consistency and efficiency across multi-cloud environments."
"We have found the overall functionality of the product to be exactly similar to the physical product. The one good advantage is that it is cloud-based and can be deployed either as a part of a scale set or one can shut down the virtual machine and adjust the physical parameters of the virtual machine easily and bring it right back up."
"The tool's most valuable features are firewalls and IPS."
"We have unified management. It is one of the advantages of this product."
"The reporting features are very good."
"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 most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is a very strong product with good support."
"Good user interface."
"The solution is excellent for web and application filtering and remote access with the VPN."
"The product, itself, doesn't seem to have any bugs or glitches."
"The solution has good load balancers."
"User and network policies to be managed on a single screen with powerful filtering and search options."
"The solution could be more secure and stable."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"Bandwidth usage in reporting could be improved for Fortinet FortiGate."
"To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet does not have a CASB solution and Fortinet does not have a Zero trust solution."
"I would like to see improvements with the antivirus and IPS as they are not working properly all the time."
"Palo Alto has a feature called WildFire Analysis that is unavailable in FortiGate. WildFire is better than a sandbox because it can address zero-day threats and vulnerabilities. It can immediately identify zero-day threats from the cloud."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve the logging and reporting. Additionally, the next-generation application's policies should be improved. When they were released they had bugs."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"Check Point CloudGuard Network Security could improve by making it easier to configure."
"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 solution could improve to have a DLP feature."
"I want the upgrades of their CloudGuard solution to major versions to be easier. We have had a few small hiccups. They have different types of cloud clusters called Geo Clusters, and those just cannot be upgraded past a certain point, which is a hurdle that we are currently experiencing."
"Check Point Virtual Systems is a complete solution, but pricing can be better."
"The initial setup was a bit complex."
"CheckPoint CloudGuard could be better at solving cases."
"We have Microsoft CASB cloud app security and it's one of the least compatible firewalls. They really need to look at this, as both Check Point and Microsoft are major players. Why aren't they compatible? If we had Palo Alto then we wouldn't have this problem."
"In my experience the solution can be easier to configure with more documentation, we need more training."
"Cyberoam UTM needs to have more certifications with third-parties, such as NSS Labs."
"I would like to see improvements in the development of reports. The process needs to be made simple."
"The solution's pricing could be a problem for some small businesses."
"Its scalability is not that great."
"The product strategy of the manufacturer is strange. I don't understand what they are doing in that regard."
"The reports need to be more detailed and granular."
"On-box sandstorm should be available. As of now, it is from their cloud."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 120 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.
