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."What I like the most is the configuration and that it's simple, and straightforward to maintain."
"The multi-tenancy feature is most valuable. It integrates very well with FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer."
"One of the valuable features is a standardized OS."
"The product is very stable, easy to troubleshoot, and configure, so it has reduced the time it takes for support."
"The solution is stable."
"The reporting and monitoring are very good."
"The initial installation is very straightforward."
"The technical support in our region is excellent."
"The query feature is going to be a game-changer for us as we move forward."
"The tool's most valuable features are firewalls and IPS."
"It offers remarkable flexibility in how we configure and utilize the resources."
"The central management feature is a big plus, allowing us to manage both local and cloud gateways from one platform."
"This solution brings us closer to having a better security score, which helps us a lot in complying with information regulations based on security."
"The CloudGuard Network Security's most valuable feature is implementing IPS for accessing our data center and server environment in Azure. It helps us to prevent attacks. By protecting our environment with Check Point, which we were already familiar with, it provided a solution that extended into the cloud environment."
"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 ease of administration with the cloud management extension and the cloud licensing model is valuable."
"The solution is excellent for web and application filtering and remote access with the VPN."
"In some circumstances, the malware functionality is the most important feature, and in other cases, some other features."
"The VPN is excellent on the solution."
"The tool's robust features allow for the customization of policies, objects, and firewall settings."
"The reporting features are very good."
"User and network policies to be managed on a single screen with powerful filtering and search options."
"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 product, itself, doesn't seem to have any bugs or glitches."
"I think they need to improve more in order to be a competitor with the leaders of the field."
"The logs need to be better. They need to be more visible and easier to access."
"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."
"The main aspect of FortiGate that could be improved is load balancing. Our management team does not want to buy another appliance for only load balancing."
"Technical support could be better. You don't always get the level of help you need right away."
"Cisco Meraki products are rising very quickly in the cloud and the connected era. Meraki products offer much better ROI, upgradability, and manageability."
"It is quite new for us, and we need to go more in-depth into the monitoring tools. It provides different features that we need to do what we want. So far, it is okay for us. In terms of improvement, in the future, they can provide a faster implementation of features. Some of the features are first available in other solutions. Fortinet sometimes takes a little bit longer than other solutions, such as Check Point, to implement new features."
"MTBF: Hardware failure is more common when compared to SonicWall or Cisco ASA."
"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."
"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."
"CloudGuard Network Security could be improved in the area of upgrading in place."
"The solution lacks the capability to scale effectively."
"CheckPoint CloudGuard could be better at solving cases."
"The product needs to improve support. They don't consider my case the number one priority even though I want a quick resolution."
"The solution’s technical support, DNS security and training could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"The documentation is not straightforward."
"The technical support response time could be faster."
"I have problems with the email filtering. Emails pass through without any filtering affecting them. When I get back to them and tell them this is the issue, they check everything and say it is not in their database signature and they have to update it. But you know, by that time, my user has already opened it."
"Sometimes, users are timed out intermittently."
"The implementation policy needs improvment."
"The product is at its end-of-life. There is nothing to improve as it will be discontinued."
"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."
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 Untangle NG Firewall. 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.