We performed a comparison between 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 blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"The most valuable features are the policies, filtering, and configuration."
"The email protection and VPN features are the most valuable."
"The IPS is good. It protect my network from attackers."
"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."
"Good performance, stability, and virtual domain ability."
"The threat prevention is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The technical support in our region is excellent."
"The product gives analytic reports."
"Its blades and VSLS (Virtual System Load Sharing) work fine."
"It's a high-performance device. The network performance is also really good. We check how much time it takes for the servers. Our network performance has increased since using this solution."
"The 24/7 online customer support services enhance effective operations and provide quick services in case of a system failure."
"Monitoring using SmartConsole and all its features is extremely easy, and I find SmartEvent an excellent monitoring tool for spotting threats and user behaviour."
"The security configuration features have enhanced the reliable coordination of programs and data safety."
"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."
"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 product, itself, doesn't seem to have any bugs or glitches."
"In some circumstances, the malware functionality is the most important feature, and in other cases, some other features."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"We are using it as a security shield. It does not allow access before that in case we have restricted a few things from users, so it helps me in that."
"The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company."
"The port forwarding is good."
"The tool's robust features allow for the customization of policies, objects, and firewall settings."
"Content filtering, as this enables me to control that which employees can view at different time quotas."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"They should improve the interface to make it more user-friendly."
"While FortiGate is cheaper than most other solutions, we're seeing increased license renewal costs. Most of our clients are asking for more significant discounts because the price is going up."
"Quality control on their firmware versions needs improvement. When they introduce new firmware, there tend to be bugs."
"There are some cloud-based features that could be much more flexible than they currently are."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"CloudGuard functions just like any other firewall. It functions very well. The only thing that could maybe be improved would be to integrate some tools that are not integrated with the SmartConsole, like the SmartView Monitor that we need to open on a different application to access."
"We miss full blade support for all blades that are compatible with the cluster. Especially notable is the lack of support for Identity Awareness in active standby environments for customers. In our setup, transitioning to Connective clusters would be preferable for maintaining connections during failover situations."
"The initial setup was a bit complex."
"CloudGuard Network Security's pricing is expensive. We have encountered issues with its licensing."
"In case the device is inaccessible due to some issue such as CPU or memory, there is no separate port or hardware partition provided for troubleshooting purposes."
"It can be difficult to install properly without prior training"
"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."
"Lacks the ability to integrate with other security solutions."
"Cyberoam configuration is done through the browser, which is one of the places that viruses spread."
"The product needs to improve its pricing."
"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."
"The solution could be cheaper."
"Once in a while, an unwanted email will slip in. You have to set your parameters to avoid that happening, but once in a while, an email has slipped past firewall. Once you update the firmware, you notice that it doesn't happen. If an email slips in, I get a little bit worried. I do get the report, but you just don't want that situation happening in the first place."
"The product strategy of the manufacturer is strange. I don't understand what they are doing in that regard."
"It isn't missing anything."
"The setup is a bit complex, so we needed help from a consultant."
CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 54 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 27 reviews. CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.4, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CloudGuard Network Security writes "Does what it is designed for and matches what we have on-prem". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "A versatile solution that comes with valuable security features like geofencing and traffic shaping". CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Sophos XG. See our 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.