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."The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"I appreciate FortiGate's flexibility, which allows for centralized management through FortiManager."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the analytics."
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"It's very good and very stable for businesses. It works very well."
"The simplicity of the product is great. It's very easy to use, which is a compliment we get all the time in terms of feedback."
"The solution is stable."
"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 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."
"It's possible to sync the Check Point Management with the cloud portal, therefore allowing automated rules to be set in place whenever creating a new VM."
"When browsing, it scans sites to ensure that they are safe and that no harm can be caused."
"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."
"It is dynamic and agile, and its features and utilities continuously improve and evolve."
"It offers remarkable flexibility in how we configure and utilize the resources."
"It really is a pretty complete solution."
"The most valuable features are the firewall section, the VPN, and how you control live users."
"The reporting features are very good."
"SD-WAN and IPSec features are valuable to me."
"You can geofence yourself if there is an incoming attack or a continuous ping from a company outside your country."
"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."
"There are plenty of features that are valuable in the Sophos Cyberoam UTM. We use all the features, such as email Security, firewall rules, web server security, web devices, web protection."
"We consider the user level and control features of Sophos Cyberoam UTM to be the best."
"The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company."
"I'm not sure if it's something that they already have or are developing something, however, we need some dedicated features for container security."
"With the reports, you can see it, and you can get good feelings so upper management can go, "Oh, wow. That looks pretty." However, it's very basic."
"Fortinet should focus on enhancing the capabilities of FortiGate by consolidating its various products, such as FortiGate Cloud, FortiManager, and FortiAnalyzer."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding enhancements to FortiMail, FortiSOAR, and FortiDeceptor."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having better visibility. Palo Alto has better visibility."
"The solution can have more features in a single box that can be multi-applied to integrate everything."
"They sometimes hide some features and if you want to enable them, you have to go in the CLI, enable the feature and configure it through the CLI. Customers, typically, like everything to be done by the GUI."
"There is room for improvement regarding the technical support provided."
"There is room for improvement in addressing bugs and support issues."
"It is somewhat problematic in the area of the cloud."
"The initial deployment using the ARM template in Azure was straightforward, but migrating to Terraform added complexity, although we managed to make it work."
"Sometimes, if you aren't familiar with the solution, it can be a bit complex, but it does become easier to use with time. However, every time they launch a new version, it becomes more complex and you need to take time to get familiar with all the changes. For every version that they upgrade, you need to upskill yourself."
"The convergence time between cluster members is still not perfect. It's far away from what we get in traditional appliances. If a company wants to move mission-critical applications for an environment to the cloud, it somehow has to accept that it could have downtime of up to 40 seconds, until cluster members switch virtual IP addresses between themselves and start accepting the traffic. That is a little bit too high in my opinion. It's not fully Check Point's fault, because it's a hybrid mechanism with AWS. The blame is 50/50."
"People don't know about the tool's features. There's a lack of skill. Users require more knowledge on how to integrate it into the cloud environment and orchestrate routing. So, it's not necessarily a CloudGuard Network Security or Check Point issue but more about integration, knowledge, and understanding."
"It needs to cover additional kinds of infrastructure, like containers and serverless options. It's somewhat limited in that area."
"The solution could be cheaper."
"We have had some issues with technical support, which is an area that needs improvement."
"It isn't missing anything."
"The policy is a bit too vague."
"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."
"Its scalability is not that great."
"The setup is a bit complex, so we needed help from a consultant."
"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."
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.
