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 most valuable feature is the ease of use."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"It's super reliable. I don't think I've ever had a reliability issue with it."
"The most important features of Fortinet FortiGate are the Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and firewall control applications."
"Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"The most valuable features of the solution are SD-WAN, filtering testing applications, web filtering, and the new VPN."
"Offers good security and filtering."
"The product has allowed us to develop applications from the cloud - even with large environments and well-segmented security lines."
"The solution provides a centralized management console for easy administration and monitoring of security policies and events, making it easy for the security team."
"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 most valuable feature of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the increased mail protection including spam."
"We find Check Point valuable because they are 100% focused on security. It totally closes the potential vulnerability channel. We can check our mail and our attachments and we can scan everything easily. We get an immediate report about the situation of the attachments. We can discover if the target's security attack was started from phishing, etc. We also enjoy using the additional features that protect our internal customer from targeted attacks."
"The solution is easier to manage than an on-premise firewall. It is easy to manage. The use of dynamic objects for these gateways made it easy to create the right rules and the right policies. Integration with Azure is also easy where we have to just add the subnets. In an on-premise setup, we have to add everything from scratch. We can automate a lot of actions."
"The capability to auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand is great."
"The most valuable feature for us is the simplicity of creating this environment. Even though our current cloud usage is limited, the process of setting up machines in the product and establishing an HR system was straightforward."
"It has been working fine. You just turn it on, and it works."
"The most valuable feature of this product is the threat protection."
"The solution has good load balancers."
"The solution's interface is user-friendly, and the web protection is good. The tool is highly stable. The product is scalable. The technical support is good. We chose Sophos Cyberoam UTM because their focus on security research is higher compared to other brands. It's an all-in-one solution with antivirus, EDR, wireless protection, and web protection integrated into one box. The initial setup was straightforward."
"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."
"User and network policies to be managed on a single screen with powerful filtering and search options."
"The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is a very strong product with good support."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"Some configuration elements cannot be easily altered once created."
"It claims it does DLP, but the degree and level of controls are very basic."
"Lacks training for new features."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"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."
"While today we can manage some scopes, there are still some segments in the OSI layer we cannot manage."
"The solution’s technical support, DNS security and training could be improved."
"Zero touch removes any independence for configuring."
"The biggest room for improvement is that, for a long time now, they've moved everything over to R80 but they still maintain some of the stuff in the old dashboard. They need to "buy in" and move everything to the modern dashboard so that you don't have to go to one place and to another place, at times, to configure the environment. It's time they just finish what they started and put everything in the new, modern dashboard."
"The solution's integration with cloud providers has seen significant development in the past months, but there is room for improvement for better integration."
"In the next release, including VRF support would be highly beneficial."
"The memory and hard disk capability could be strengthened."
"If you compare the GUI with the Palo Alto and Forcepoint in the Cisco, they're very easy. Check Point, due to its design, is a little bit complex. They should make the GUI easy to use so that anyone can understand it easily, like Fortinet's GUI. Many companies end up using Fortinet because the GUI is very easy, and there's no need for training. They just deploy the box and do the configuration."
"The Traffic Discovery feature should allow administrators to disconnect unnecessary live connections."
"Sometimes, during part of the configuration, if you don't have a lot of technical knowledge, then you may struggle a bit to configure it."
"The blocking needs to be improved."
"Maybe network traffic analysis for malware and malicious behavior."
"It isn't missing anything."
"We use different workarounds and find different solutions for it, depending on the client's needs. We shouldn't have to, we should just be able to use the product as it comes with Cyberoam, rather than having to revert to other products."
"The reporting part could be more user-friendly for troubleshooting and identifying network issues. It should be more easy for a normal user to identify the problem in their network."
"The documentation is not straightforward."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 112 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.