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."The solution is extremely reliable."
"Fortinet FortiGate's most valuable features are ease of use, flexibility, and most of the configuration we can be done using the GUI. When we compare Fortinet FortiGate with other solutions the firewall policy are very easy to understand."
"This solution has helped our organization by having strong functions and a reliable firewall."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a scalable solution."
"Fortinet FortiGate's reliability is valuable."
"LinkGreat firewall capabilities"
"We have found it to be very reliable and that's why our teams and various users in our company use it as our main firewall every day."
"It's an easy solution to set up."
"The product gives analytic reports."
"Now, we can filter which websites users can access and block categories that are a risk. For example, we can block social media and gambling sites. This has helped to decrease the risk of access to malicious content on the internet."
"Check Point CloudGuard is quick to deploy and easy for the customer to use."
"I like the tool's ability to manage cloud traffic locally without routing it through our data centers."
"We have found the overall functionality of the product to be exactly similar to the physical product. The one good advantage is that it is cloud-based and can be deployed either as a part of a scale set or one can shut down the virtual machine and adjust the physical parameters of the virtual machine easily and bring it right back up."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized dashboard, which is used for managing all of the Check Point Security Gateways."
"Moving into the cloud without having to change a lot of our internal processes and retrain staff is one of the biggest benefits of this solution."
"The most valuable feature is that we can use the same manager server that we use on our own Check Point firewalls. We integrated CloudGuard on that manager and we can use the same kind of protections that we use on the on-prem firewalls, like the IPS and antivirus policy. We can have the same kind of protection on the Cloud environment that we have on-premise."
"All in one UTM appliance."
"Content filtering, as this enables me to control that which employees can view at different time quotas."
"SD-WAN and IPSec features are valuable to me."
"Technical support is excellent."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"The product has helped control bandwidth utilization, as well as enhanced connectivity and security to remote locations."
"It has been working fine. You just turn it on, and it works."
"The firewall feature has different branches, such as extended firewalls."
"We would like to have the ability to disable some of the security functionalities."
"Reporting is limited to providing an external appliance for improving the reporting capabilities of the FortiAnalyzer. It does not offer a central management and is also sold separably as an appliance."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve by integrating the web application firewall and the DDoS protection part of the solution. Having a WAF feature, web application firewall, and proxy together would be a good benefit."
"It can be a little bit more user-friendly in terms of policy definition and implementation. It seems a little bit complicated, and it could be simplified."
"The web-cache feature which was previously on the FortiGate device, but was deleted with the recent upgrade should be returned. It was a very valuable feature for us."
"Compared to some other products, the DLP is not at par for the moment."
"The visibility of the network can be better. The GUI can be improved for better visibility of the network flow. Other solutions have better GUI in terms of network visibility."
"Backup can be improved."
"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."
"Micro-Segmentation functionality for EAST-WEST traffic is not native and requires integration with a third-party OEM."
"Most clients nowadays tend to move to the cloud and their data security is key. If CloudGuard could be able to give the client that full visibility of how their data is protected on the cloud, then that would be a great selling point for Check Point."
"Check Point has a history of moving fast with software release and upgrade cycles which are difficult to keep up with at times."
"There is room for improvement, especially concerning the integration with the management center. It would be beneficial if tasks that currently require scripts could be performed directly from the GUI."
"The relationship between AWS and Check Point could be better. We had issues related to the type of instance and how it interconnects with AWS or cloud-native solutions. We overcame the pain points that we had, and now, AWS is evolving in a way that will facilitate how Check Point works. Our pain points were minimized, but they were there."
"The solution needs to support more hypervisors."
"It's meeting our needs at this time. If I could make it better, it would be by making it more standalone. That would be beneficial to us. I say that because our current platform for virtualization is VMware. The issue isn't any fault of Check Point, it's more how the virtualization platform partners allow for that partnership and integration. There has to be close ties and partnerships between the vendors to ensure interoperability and sup-portability. There is only so far that Check Point, or any security vendor technology can go without the partnership and enablement of the virtualization platform vendor as it relies on "Service Insertion" to maintain optimal performance."
"It should have better VPN protection. Some of the VPN applications are not blocked by this firewall. Some VPNs are able to get through this firewall, which is why I am planning to replace this firewall with a good one in the near future."
"The policy is a bit too vague."
"The solution's pricing could be a problem for some small businesses."
"Network visibility is an area in the solution with shortcomings where improvements can be made."
"Cyberoam configuration is done through the browser, which is one of the places that viruses spread."
"Cyberoam UTM needs to have more certifications with third-parties, such as NSS Labs."
"It isn't missing anything."
"The product is at its end-of-life. There is nothing to improve as it will be discontinued."
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.