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."Its stability is the most valuable."
"Overall, the pricing of the solution is very good. The product offers good value."
"The wireless control is helpful."
"FortiGate is on the cheaper end, and it offers good value."
"The solution is very user friendly. The user interface in particular is quite nice."
"I only deal with it from a security analyst's point of view. I don't really get into the features of the actual FortiGate. From the security point of view, it works, and it does its job."
"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 IPsec tunnels are very easily created, and quite interoperable with devices from other vendors."
"It was very easy to install the solution, and the architecture meant we didn't have to worry about exceeding the solution's capacity."
"The capability to auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand is great."
"The program is very stable."
"Check Point has pretty simple solutions, like the virtual appliance which you just download and it is imported into VMware and you just start using it."
"Advanced check prevention is a great feature that provides threat intelligence at speed."
"The most valuable feature of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the ease of use. It was not difficult to learn."
"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 tool's most valuable features are firewalls and IPS."
"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."
"Having a firewall solution with a data quota is very important when the bandwidth is limited, which really distinguishes it from other products."
"The port forwarding is good."
"User and network policies to be managed on a single screen with powerful filtering and search options."
"The most valuable feature of this product is the threat protection."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM is used for perimeter security, web filtering, intrusion prevention and as a VPN."
"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 Sophos Cyberoam UTM is the SD-WAN gateway."
"The solution can have more features in a single box that can be multi-applied to integrate everything."
"The Web-filter in this solution is not very good."
"FortiGate support could do some improvements on their IPv6 configuration. Right now it's still in the very early stage for utilizing in an enterprise level network environment."
"The stability of Fortinet FortiGate could improve."
"Currently, without the additional reporting module, we only have access to basic reporting."
"Their software support needs improvement. I would prefer to have better support for bug fixes. Sometimes, we open a ticket, and it is very difficult to get a solution. Specifically, we are not at all happy with their support for load balancing."
"The logs need to be better. They need to be more visible and easier to access."
"The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement."
"The cost needs improvement as it is currently quite expensive."
"The documentation has been rough. Being able to do it yourself can be hit or miss given the constraints of the documentation."
"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."
"Our biggest complaint concerns the high resource usage for IDP/IPS, as we cannot turn on all of the features even with new hardware."
"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 the next release, including VRF support would be highly beneficial."
"The SD-WAN could be better."
"Some more built-in marketplace templates would be nice. It would be nice to see more vendor assistance in deployments and backup of recoveries versus having customers rely upon that themselves. That would make it a lot more seamless and aligned with the standard on-premise model that is there. Check Point can extend the same posture that they have to CloudGuard and make that transition very seamless."
"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."
"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 product is at its end-of-life. There is nothing to improve as it will be discontinued."
"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."
"Cyberoam UTM needs to have more certifications with third-parties, such as NSS Labs."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM could have a more advanced reporting function."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM could improve by adding VPN site-to-site capabilities. The correct version does not work with Microsoft Azure Cloud."
"Maybe network traffic analysis for malware and malicious behavior."
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, 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.