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 response is very quick and they can visually resolve our problems in a short period."
"The most valuable feature of FortiGate is FortiView which provides proactive monitoring."
"In terms of security, we have not experienced any security flaws or loopholes, and it has proven to be quite stable."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a scalable solution."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a stable solution."
"The features that we have found most valuable are the SSL VPN and the User Portal."
"Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"Auto-scaling and zero touch are valuable features."
"The solution has been quite stable."
"The SSL spectrum proved to be the most valuable for our incoming connections."
"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 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."
"The 24/7 online customer support services enhance effective operations and provide quick services in case of a system failure."
"The product gives analytic reports."
"This solution has good scalability and stability."
"I believe it's the advanced security software that offers SMPP protection for the agent."
"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."
"I like the SSL VPN connection. Cyberoam works well for controlling users and authenticating their connection to the internet."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"Having a firewall solution with a data quota is very important when the bandwidth is limited, which really distinguishes it from other products."
"The VPN is excellent on the solution."
"The product is worth the investment."
"It is a VPN that serves all your needs as an application firewall."
"Backup can be improved."
"The solution could be more user friendly."
"Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it."
"Security is a continuous process. In every product, there is a requirement for improvement. Its pricing should also be improved according to Indian market requirements. They must also improve on the reporting part. Its reporting can be more precise. If we can get a real-time report in a specific format, it will be helpful for customers to know about the current status of their security."
"It should have a better pricing plan. It is too expensive. It should also have a more granular view of the attack. I don't have FortiAnalyzer, and it is difficult for me to have a complete view when there is an attack on my server."
"I would like to see better pricing in the next release, as well as a simplification of the installation."
"Some of the filtering is not robust, you can escape it with a VPN. Some of the users bypass some of the filters. It catches some but it also misses some, that area could be improved. It's functioning reasonably but there's room for improvement in that area."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"The user experience might suffer if we don't have the time to follow up with our clients and ensure they are using the right options. Clients also want more local support in Portuguese and Spanish during their normal business hours. That's something I hear from my customers and my team, too."
"The solution lacks the capability to scale effectively."
"A threat categorization system can be added to give users the authority to define vulnerable attacks and classify areas that can threaten the workflow system."
"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."
"If you compare the GUI with the Palo Alto and Forcepoint in the Cisco, they're very easy. Check Point, due to its design, is a little bit complex. They should make the GUI easy to use so that anyone can understand it easily, like Fortinet's GUI. Many companies end up using Fortinet because the GUI is very easy, and there's no need for training. They just deploy the box and do the configuration."
"The only pain points we have had with it were when we did major version upgrades. Rather than being able to do incremental upgrades on those, we had to completely redeploy. I know that has changed recently, but we had some hiccups when we did the upgrades. This is the only issue we have had."
"The initial setup was a bit complex."
"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."
"The reports need to be more detailed and granular."
"The product’s pricing has increased by approximately 45% in four months. This particular area needs improvement."
"Network visibility is an area in the solution with shortcomings where improvements can be made."
"The solution's pricing could be a problem for some small businesses."
"I would say there's room for improvement in terms of the GUI. Because it is better than some of the other standard firewalls. They have the drag and drop features."
"The blocking needs to be improved."
"The solution is at its end of life and some of the appliances are finishing."
"Its scalability is not that great."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 112 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, 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 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.