We performed a comparison between McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] and Sophos Cyberoam UTM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"The features that prevent internet connections, the filtering are the most valuable because we did not have any internet protection before."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the rules and quality of service."
"The SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"The CLI is robust and powerful, enabling rapid, consistent changes via SSH."
"Fortinet FortiGate's ease of management is the most valuable feature."
"The security features are about the best that I've seen anywhere."
"It does give certain protection for everything that is well configured on our McAfee server. We have good protection with it. If we could find a feature and make it work, it would work perfectly, there would be no bugs, and it would be really good."
"The product, itself, doesn't seem to have any bugs or glitches."
"The most valuable feature is the IPSec forwarding."
"I found that the best feature of Sophos Cyberoam UTM is reporting. Its reporting feature is excellent, fast, and easy to prep and launch."
"I like the SSL VPN connection. Cyberoam works well for controlling users and authenticating their connection to the internet."
"There are plenty of features available, such as Full Guard and WAN."
"It is a VPN that serves all your needs as an application firewall."
"Content filtering, as this enables me to control that which employees can view at different time quotas."
"The tool's robust features allow for the customization of policies, objects, and firewall settings."
"It is stable, but its stability can be improved."
"The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response."
"They should make the rule sets more understandable for the end user. When you're trying to explain to somebody how a computer network is secured, sometimes it's difficult for an end user or customer to understand. If there was a way to make the terminology more accessible to the end user, the set up could be easier. They should translate the technical jargon to an easily relatable and understandable conversation for the end user, the customer, that would be brilliant. Particularly in an environment where the IT structure is audited regularly, there's always pressure from the auditor to up the standards and up the security and you get your USCERT's that come out and there's a warning about this and the customer will want to lock out so much and when you apply it they run into issue where they can't search the internet or print to their remote office. Of course they can't print to your remote office, they just locked it up. They should make the language more understandable for the customer. If there's a product out there that made the jargon understandable to John Q. Public, I would buy that."
"There are problems with the custom reporting of the unique traffic. The data is there, but it is too difficult for us to extract."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"Its reporting capabilities can be improved. It should have some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities and some degree of customization. The basic reporting that it currently has is not sufficient to create more usable reports. It needs some sort of out-of-the-box reporting. They try to make customers purchase FortiAnalyzer for this kind of reporting, which is an additional cost. Other firewall vendors, such as SonicWall and Sophos, provide this sort of reporting without any additional cost."
"I think they need to improve more in order to be a competitor with the leaders of the field."
"The renewal price and the availability could be improved."
"Customer support and AV are both lacking and are really hard to come to you when the product is installed. Those are the two major points that they need to work on."
"While the security features are excellent, they could be improved."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM has room for improvement in specific rules-based objects and redesign. The solution also needs to improve in adding rules and policies, including renewing and finding policies."
"The reports need to be more detailed and granular."
"VPN configuration is not very swift."
"The blocking needs to be improved."
"The Traffic Discovery feature should allow administrators to disconnect unnecessary live connections."
"The solution had a feature to import users from a CSV file. However, the latest version does not have that option."
"There is a lot or room for improvement, because it is still not a fourth or fifth generation firewall. It lacks security features."
Earn 20 points
McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 81 reviews. McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is rated 7.0, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] writes "For managing multiple MFE firewalls it is incredibly handy but it could be easier for customers to migrate from one version to another. ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "Stable and has a straightforward setup; reporting is fast and easy". McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Sophos XG.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
