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."Secure, user-friendly, stable, and scalable network security solution. Installation is straightforward."
"It is a safe product."
"Its performance in fulfilling our requirements has been satisfactory."
"The initial installation is very straightforward."
"The most useful functionality of Fortinet FortiGate is the user interface, multiple engines, and their cloud with the latest integrations. Additionally, the Security Fabric tool is very good."
"The solution is highly scalable because they have devices that can handle a large amount of traffic."
"Easy to use support and licensing portal as well as activation process."
"It's very easy to configure."
"It is dynamic and agile, and its features and utilities continuously improve and evolve."
"The most valuable feature for me is that you have just one license. You can test and implement everything you need with one license. You do not need to pay for separate module licenses when you want IPS or other features."
"All the features that we subscribe to from CloudGuard NGTP are valuable. All the threat prevention and access control features give us the network security that we expect."
"Its integration and use of features, such as advanced threat prevention, have helped us a lot with malware prevention and also with avoiding exposure to false positives."
"The Identity Awareness blade and dynamic tagging in Azure are valuable because they make access management automatic. Instead of manually setting up access for each new resource, it happens automatically based on the same access policy. This dynamic setup is scalable."
"The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features."
"Now, we can filter which websites users can access and block categories that are a risk. For example, we can block social media and gambling sites. This has helped to decrease the risk of access to malicious content on the internet."
"The tool's deployment is rapid. Its dashboard is also useful. It's easy to deploy both on-premises and in Azure. In an office with VMware running, deployment is a simple process. Similarly, in Azure, deployment is easy and scalable. Adding more CPUs is a straightforward task – just shut it down, modify the security, and restart. This ease of use translates into cost and resource savings, and faster deployment times."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"We consider the user level and control features of Sophos Cyberoam UTM to be the best."
"SD-WAN and IPSec features are valuable to me."
"The product is a simple and user-friendly UTM that can handle accounting, reporting, firewall, IPS, and antivirus for industries."
"I like Sophos Cyberoam UTM as a security component or device for organizations. Performance-wise, it's a satisfactory solution, and it works okay. It also has good features."
"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."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The user interface is well laid out and understandable."
"There are some tiny bugs that sometimes affect the operations. In the past revision of it, there was a bug. Because of the bug, we had to downgrade the version. It happened only with the last revision."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"In the next release, I would like to see the interface simplified to be more user-friendly."
"There are problems with the custom reporting of the unique traffic. The data is there, but it is too difficult for us to extract."
"It should provide better visibility over the network and more information in the form of reports for the end users. Its installation should also be easier."
"I would prefer to have more detailed logs within the FortiGate products themselves rather than relying on a separate tool."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"The solution lacks multi-language support."
"We did not use the AWS Transit Gateway, and that's one of the things that we're currently using. I believe we will be working with Check Point again, in the near future, to implement it, once they start having proper support for a single customer with multiple accounts. When we were using them, we had to install Check Point on each and every single account."
"Regarding CloudGuard Network Security's integration with various resources like application gateways and application-based security groups, there's room for exploring dynamic access in those areas. A significant concern is the upgrade process. Unlike an in-place upgrade, upgrading the tool in Azure requires deploying a new resource, which can be hectic and less reliable. We have to spend something new to have the tool's latest version."
"What I would like for future updates would be faster updates to apply, and perhaps a greater presence in the local language for the regions of Latin America."
"They can improve their security features to the next advanced level so that their efficiency in catching the malware can become 100%, and there is no scope for any data loss or leakage from the system due to any issue."
"Our biggest complaint concerns the high resource usage for IDP/IPS, as we cannot turn on all of the features even with new hardware."
"New features have been introduced recently, but they have not yet been integrated into CloudGuard Vsec."
"With the incorporation of a lot of AI and machine learning, they can build some sort of a matrix for low-level threats or low-level things that require attention. There can be automation of those tasks so that we don't have to take more time and effort. There should be machine learning to eliminate level-one types of tasks."
"Check Point Virtual Systems is a complete solution, but pricing can be better."
"The implementation policy needs improvment."
"The product is at its end-of-life. There is nothing to improve as it will be discontinued."
"The reports need to be more detailed and granular."
"I would like to see real-time alerts on traffic insights."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM could improve by adding VPN site-to-site capabilities. The correct version does not work with Microsoft Azure Cloud."
"There needs to be more documentation that users can access to help them understand the solution or troubleshoot as necessary."
"Network visibility is an area in the solution with shortcomings where improvements can be made."
"I would like to see improvements in the development of reports. The process needs to be made simple."
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.