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 base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"Security management tool that's easy to integrate and easy to work with. No issues found with its stability and scalability."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ability to work in proxy mode, which other solutions, such as Palo Alto cannot. There are some features that are better that come at no extra license or subscriptions cost, such as basic SD-WAN. The DLT is useful, other solutions have the same feature too, such as Palo Alto."
"Overall, the pricing of the solution is very good. The product offers good value."
"The most valuable feature is the bundled subscription, which is IPS, TV and web filtering."
"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."
"FortiGate firewalls are easy to manage through a user-friendly web interface. They also have advanced features like DDoS and DLP. However, I wouldn't recommend enabling all of these features on one device because it can cause performance issues."
"One of the valuable features is a standardized OS."
"Any kind of cloud environment anywhere can be protected through this effortlessly."
"The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features."
"It is dynamic and agile, and its features and utilities continuously improve and evolve."
"One of the main characteristics that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has given us is granularity and visibility."
"Customers appreciate the CME plugin for automatically understanding assets within the cloud. This information appears in the manager, allowing users to tag the assets and adjust policies and rules accordingly."
"We find all the features valuable, particularly the firewall, application control, URL filtering, and HTTPS detection."
"We primarily secure our network using CloudGuard Network Security's next-generation firewall features, including anti-spam, IPS, and URL filtering. Our chosen package for the go-to-market strategy is NGTP. For customers seeking more features, we provide options to upgrade to the tool's advanced packages."
"Now, we can filter which websites users can access and block categories that are a risk. For example, we can block social media and gambling sites. This has helped to decrease the risk of access to malicious content on the internet."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"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 is the IPSec forwarding."
"Cyberoam UTM's most valuable feature is that it can be configured any way you like."
"The reporting features are very good."
"The user interface is well laid out and understandable."
"The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"The support team for Fortinet FortiGate needs to be more customer friendly."
"The solution's framework needs to be frequently updated in order to have a stable solution."
"Its reporting capabilities can be improved. It should have some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities and some degree of customization. The basic reporting that it currently has is not sufficient to create more usable reports. It needs some sort of out-of-the-box reporting. They try to make customers purchase FortiAnalyzer for this kind of reporting, which is an additional cost. Other firewall vendors, such as SonicWall and Sophos, provide this sort of reporting without any additional cost."
"Scalability for Fortinet FortiGate needs to be improved. SD-WAN security for this solution also needs some improvement."
"The updates Fortinet provides are sometimes unstable."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having more storage in the hardware for log data."
"I think there could be more QoS features"
"I would like to see improvements in the product's application rules."
"The documentation has been rough. Being able to do it yourself can be hit or miss given the constraints of the documentation."
"The SD-WAN could be better."
"For major upgrades, it's still necessary to destroy the VMs and re-create them again. Doing that would mean new public IPs as well."
"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 price of the solution could be reduced, it is expensive."
"The product can still grow."
"The solution’s technical support, DNS security and training could be improved."
"The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"I would like to see real-time alerts on traffic insights."
"The reports need to be more detailed and granular."
"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."
"On-box sandstorm should be available. As of now, it is from their cloud."
"It is not a scalable product. This is because if you want to increase the capacity of the solution, then you have to change the device."
"The Traffic Discovery feature should allow administrators to disconnect unnecessary live connections."
"The policy is a bit too vague."
"The solution is at its end of life and some of the appliances are finishing."
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 Sophos XG. 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.