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."FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"The secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"Whenever we raise a complaint with FortiGate, their response and resolution times are minimal."
"The security features that they have are quite good. On top of that, their licensing model is quite nice where they don't charge you anything for the SD-WAN functionality for the firewall."
"The application control features, such as Facebook blocking and Spotify blocking, are the most valuable."
"All of the features of Fortinet FortiGate are useful and the security protection is good."
"We were looking for the VPN feature and controlling the inflow and outflow of all the traffic within the site and across the sites. We are also using it for the VPN and VLANs."
"The solution has been quite stable."
"SSL/TLS traffic inspection features are used for advanced threat prevention against secure SSL traffic."
"The visibility is most valuable. It allows us to see all of our devices from one place, and it gives us the ability to manage push updates and things like that from one place."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its scalability. You will only have to pay less for scaling up. Its notable benefit is deployment complexity. Regional deployment is simpler compared to on-premise setup."
"The tool's most valuable features are firewalls and IPS."
"The SSL spectrum proved to be the most valuable for our incoming connections."
"It really is a pretty complete solution."
"Our clients choose CloudGuard as a natural progression of their solutions. They understand Microsoft and CloudGuard fits."
"The performance has been good overall."
"Having a firewall solution with a data quota is very important when the bandwidth is limited, which really distinguishes it from other products."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"Web Filtering and Application Filtering saves a lot of my bandwidth and improves the user's productivity."
"Its portal is user-friendly. I am able to manage the user data and access control through this device."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Web and content filtering are valuable in preventing people from abusing the network and pushing up the bandwidth price."
"The firewall feature has different branches, such as extended firewalls."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"The solution can have more features in a single box that can be multi-applied to integrate everything."
"We would like to see an upgrade to the VPN feature, we are using the VPN from outside of our office and there is a limitation to 10 connections, more connections would be suitable."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"Vulnerability scanning could be improved."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve the integration with Active Directory. Additionally, I would like to have a Cloud Controller, such as they do in the Cisco Meraki solution."
"There are SD-WAN network monitoring, SD-WAN features, Industrial Databases, Internet of Things, Detection, etc., however, we do have not licenses for those features. We thought that if you bought a product, you should have all of the features it offers. Why should you need to make so many extra purchases to enable features? They should have one price for the entire offering."
"CloudGuard Network Security needs to include new features. One specific feature I would like to see is the ability to protect external resources using single sign-on integration with various identity providers, including custom identity providers. Its pricing could also be cheaper."
"New features have been introduced recently, but they have not yet been integrated into CloudGuard Vsec."
"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."
"While today we can manage some scopes, there are still some segments in the OSI layer we cannot manage."
"The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler."
"Lacks the ability to integrate with other security solutions."
"We utilize logging systems, and geolocation is crucial for us as some applications must only be accessible from our country. However, there have been occasional issues with this feature."
"This application can be more integrated with web application firewalls. Better integrations would provide more granularity, which would be helpful for focusing on the application itself and preventing attacks. It would be good to include the cross-domain search. If you have multiple firewalls that are managed on the same platform and you want to check who is using some particular objects or where a specific ID is being used, it should provide an option for this kind of search instead of having to check one by one on each firewall."
"Needs a mail alert/notification when the device loses any of its connections, during ISP redundancy implementation."
"The product is at its end-of-life. There is nothing to improve as it will be discontinued."
"The configuration requires an expert to be set up, so it could be made simpler."
"We use different workarounds and find different solutions for it, depending on the client's needs. We shouldn't have to, we should just be able to use the product as it comes with Cyberoam, rather than having to revert to other products."
"We have had some issues with technical support, which is an area that needs improvement."
"The documentation is not straightforward."
"It is not a scalable product. This is because if you want to increase the capacity of the solution, then you have to change the device."
"The following could be improved: Web Filtering using wildcards; clarity regarding the firewall rules; granular reporting features."
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.