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 reporting you receive out of this appliance is excellent. You will not need an external management system."
"It's very easy to configure."
"The most valuable features are the policies, filtering, and configuration."
"The most valuable features are that it is very simple to configure and to manage."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"It is very flexible to use."
"The pipe filter application is an outstanding feature."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and the UI. It has always provided me with what I needed. I have no need for additional costs that other solutions have, such as Sophos."
"It is scalable. It's a cloud solution, so it's easy to implement and manage."
"Workflows across the company ecosystem have can flow smoothly without experiencing any challenges."
"The solution's most valuable feature is scalability. We can increase the number of CPUs, memory, and firewall throughput easily. Using CloudGuard Network Security for managing cloud firewall rules is considered easier than using the normal security groups provided by Azure or AWS."
"Advanced check prevention is a great feature that provides threat intelligence at speed."
"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."
"One of the main characteristics that Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has given us is granularity and visibility."
"This software is great in overall performance since it can locate any trouble across the networking system and provide solutions before it affects workflows."
"Some retail customers find the scale-up and scale-down features valuable, particularly with scale sets. This is useful for handling increased loads on devices and utilizing firewalls, similar to on-premises setups with active standby configurations."
"The solution's interface is user-friendly, and the web protection is good. The tool is highly stable. The product is scalable. The technical support is good. We chose Sophos Cyberoam UTM because their focus on security research is higher compared to other brands. It's an all-in-one solution with antivirus, EDR, wireless protection, and web protection integrated into one box. The initial setup was straightforward."
"Having a firewall solution with a data quota is very important when the bandwidth is limited, which really distinguishes it from other products."
"The tool is stable."
"There are plenty of features available, such as Full Guard and WAN."
"The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company."
"It is a VPN that serves all your needs as an application firewall."
"The most valuable feature is the IPSec forwarding."
"The user interface is well laid out and understandable."
"I would like to see better pricing in the next release, as well as a simplification of the installation."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having better visibility. Palo Alto has better visibility."
"This product needs to have an analysis feature, rather than having the analysis done through the integration of a different product."
"I would like Fortinet to add more automation to FortiGate."
"Monitoring and reporting could be better."
"The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture."
"We would like to see better pricing."
"I would like to see improvements in the product's application rules."
"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."
"The initial setup was a bit complex."
"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."
"It can be difficult to install properly without prior training"
"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."
"CloudGuard Network Security could be improved in the area of upgrading in place."
"The API integration is complex, which is an area that should be improved."
"The product needs to improve support. They don't consider my case the number one priority even though I want a quick resolution."
"The product fails to provide proper reports, making it an area where improvements are required."
"Hence, it needs to be easier to configure rules using the solution."
"The product had a hang issue. We needed to reboot, recreate the image, and reconfigure the previous image because the product hanged frequently."
"I would like to see real-time alerts on traffic insights."
"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."
"I would like to see a better content management pack and also the website searching should be better."
"Sometimes, during part of the configuration, if you don't have a lot of technical knowledge, then you may struggle a bit to configure it."
"It should have a better VPN client. We decided to find something different than Cyberoam because of the VPN client software. It would be nice to have a user interface not only in English but also in different languages."
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.