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."It is simple to manage, and there are a lot of functionalities in the same box."
"The solution is stable."
"From the firewall perspective, the rules and policies are very sufficient and easy to use."
"It is a one box solution, which covers most of the edge device’s requirements."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Quota."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"The CLI and GUI do a good job of putting a lot at your fingertips."
"The pricing is great and very reasonable."
"Its blades and VSLS (Virtual System Load Sharing) work fine."
"The Capsule solution and application filters are the most valuable. It is pretty straightforward to implement, and it also has good stability and scalability. Their technical support is also really good."
"Our clients choose CloudGuard as a natural progression of their solutions. They understand Microsoft and CloudGuard fits."
"The visibility, the one-pane-of-glass which allows me to see all of my edge protection through one window and one log, is great. Monitoring everything through that one pane of glass is extremely valuable."
"The main benefit of the Check Point Virtual Systems solution is its ability to split up the hardware appliances that we have into several logical, virtual devices with separate traffic handling policies, as well as the switching and routing."
"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."
"The capability to auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand is great."
"The ease of administration with the cloud management extension and the cloud licensing model is valuable."
"The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company."
"The best feature is the flexibility the product offers, in terms of remote access. What we had before was a decentralized mechanism in our organization, but after having this product we were able to get the remote locations into the same LAN. We were able to control the bandwidth and were able to take virtual access of those machines and give them the support, as and when required."
"User and network policies to be managed on a single screen with powerful filtering and search options."
"The solution is easy to integrate."
"Bandwidth Management and aggregation. It is valuable for combining two ISPs. Switching to a secondary/redundant ISP is thus seamless, in the event that the primary ISP goes down. The Bandwidth Management is also valuable for limiting heavy downloaders that may impact negatively on the experience of other users."
"Technical support is excellent."
"The security capabilities are okay."
"The main features I have found best are the load balancer and ease of use."
"There is a lot of improvement needed with SSL-VPN."
"One of the features that I would like to have is to do with endpoint production, it should be integrated. For example, the firewall gets notified of any kind of forensic event that needs to be done, such as if there is a ransomware attack and how it originated, all those records have to be available from the firewall, which is not."
"I would like some automated custom reporting."
"You do need some IT knowledge in order to effectively work with the solution."
"Backup can be improved."
"Some of the filtering is not robust, you can escape it with a VPN. Some of the users bypass some of the filters. It catches some but it also misses some, that area could be improved. It's functioning reasonably but there's room for improvement in that area."
"Fortinet currently has many products bundled with FortiGate including the basic firewall and load balancer, and I think that that they need to have separate product portfolios for each of these specialized services."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"The documentation has been rough. Being able to do it yourself can be hit or miss given the constraints of the documentation."
"The costs are high."
"The management console can be simplified because at the moment, it is a bit of a challenge to use."
"The relationship between AWS and Check Point could be better. We had issues related to the type of instance and how it interconnects with AWS or cloud-native solutions. We overcame the pain points that we had, and now, AWS is evolving in a way that will facilitate how Check Point works. Our pain points were minimized, but they were there."
"CloudGuard Network Security's pricing is expensive. We have encountered issues with its licensing."
"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 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 documentation could be much better."
"The technical support response time could be faster."
"The VPN is an area that can be improved."
"Needs a mail alert/notification when the device loses any of its connections, during ISP redundancy implementation."
"While the security features are excellent, they could be improved."
"The Traffic Discovery feature should allow administrators to disconnect unnecessary live connections."
"I don't know whether this will be included in an upgrade, but I would like to get the user utility, like seeing where the users are using more of the data."
"Cyberoam configuration is done through the browser, which is one of the places that viruses spread."
"Network visibility is an area in the solution with shortcomings where improvements can be made."
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.
