We performed a comparison between 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 technical support in our region is excellent."
"It's inexpensive compared to some of the other technology out there."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"It performs very well."
"The SD-WAN feature is the most valuable. This feature evolved from link load balancing. It has helped us in terms of our uptime and privatizing applications whenever we experience an outage. The SD-WAN feature has been a plus for us. Two-factor authentication has allowed us to add more users in terms of remote working. We have two-factor authentication for remote workers to authenticate them before they get on the network."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the APIs. They are the most widely known."
"Whenever we raise a complaint with FortiGate, their response and resolution times are minimal."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is load balancing. It can provide central management and VPNA. Additionally, it has enhanced our security environment."
"Check Point CloudGuard technical support is good."
"The versatility is the solution's most valuable feature."
"A unique architecture makes this product stand out from other solutions."
"This software is great in overall performance since it can locate any trouble across the networking system and provide solutions before it affects workflows."
"We have complete visibility of attacks originating from email including spear-phishing, spoofing, etc."
"As per the solution's blade design, there are many options. For example, you have to buy a UTM blade and an advanced malware blade, etc. If the blade license is there, we can configure from the firewall GUI."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"Advanced check prevention is a great feature that provides threat intelligence at speed."
"In terms of features and user-friendliness, the solution is good. It’s very stable. The solution is scalable. In Sophos Cyberoam UTM, the most valuable features are web and application filtering, routing functionalities, and VPN. It has helped us manage the bandwidth."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos Cyberoam UTM is the SD-WAN gateway."
"The firewall feature has different branches, such as extended firewalls."
"I believe it's the advanced security software that offers SMPP protection for the agent."
"I find Sophos Cyberoam UTM very good. I like the feature of being able to block off Mac IDs that host users. For example, you have a Mac or Windows laptop and you created a hotspot. Other devices like mobiles and tablets e.g. iPads connected to that hotspot. We can block those devices that connected to the hotspot we created, only through Sophos. It's a good feature we didn't find in other UTMs."
"The solution has good load balancers."
"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 could be more evenly structured."
"We had some issues in the beginning while setting it up, but after doing the firmware update, it is working fine."
"The logs need to be better. They need to be more visible and easier to access."
"It should come integrated or have its own type of network monitor tool in a module. There should just be one package, and you are good to go."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"I think that the infrastructure for the VPN could be improved. The way that it is bundled also made it difficult to use and sell as it is too expensive."
"It should be more stable. There should be full integration within Fortinet products themselves as well as with other third-party products. Especially when you're not dealing with SIEM and the correlation of the security box, we want Fortinet to be able to share that information with as many other products as it can."
"The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement."
"It is somewhat problematic in the area of the cloud."
"The challenge mainly revolves around the slower functionality of virtual IP switching in Azure Virtual Network compared to on-premise solutions. On-premise, switching between clusters is faster, taking only a few seconds, while in Azure, it can extend up to five minutes. The downtime is a concern for us."
"The solution needs to support more hypervisors."
"I haven't used CloudGuard Network Security in the past couple of years as I moved out of the network security role. However, based on my previous experience, there were improvements, especially in in-place upgrades. Regarding cost, it might be potentially cheaper considering resource utilization in Azure and VM costs, but licensing could be improved, possibly moving towards a simpler model."
"The threat scanning system should categorize the level of threats to enhance reliable data interpretation."
"The stability of the solution could be improved, but this is the problem of all the solutions in the market. This isn't just a problem specific to Check Point."
"Having a web UI in the VSX (or something similar) would be nice."
"In case the device is inaccessible due to some issue such as CPU or memory, there is no separate port or hardware partition provided for troubleshooting purposes."
"There are some issues with logs and report limitations."
"The solution had a feature to import users from a CSV file. However, the latest version does not have that option."
"VPN configuration is not very swift."
"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."
"It should have better VPN protection. Some of the VPN applications are not blocked by this firewall. Some VPNs are able to get through this firewall, which is why I am planning to replace this firewall with a good one in the near future."
"Cyberoam configuration is done through the browser, which is one of the places that viruses spread."
"Cyberoam UTM needs to have more certifications with third-parties, such as NSS Labs."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM could have a more advanced reporting function."
CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 54 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 27 reviews. CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.4, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CloudGuard Network Security writes "Does what it is designed for and matches what we have on-prem". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "A versatile solution that comes with valuable security features like geofencing and traffic shaping". CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Sophos XG. See our 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.