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 pipe filter application is an outstanding feature."
"The SD-WAN function is very developed. It has SD-WAN functionality with security features in one device. We can manage from one single console SD-WAN and the security policy."
"The product offers very good security."
"A strong point of FortiGate is that the graphical interface is complete and easy to use, especially if we think there is a list of operations that we are able to perform inside."
"It is a safe product."
"FortiGate's web and URL filtering are unlike any other firewall I've used. The functionality of URL filtering in those solutions is problematic because everything is encrypted, and firewalls can't break that encryption protocol. Fortinet has an SSL proxy, so the encryption is done before the packet ever leaves the FortiGate. The URL filter is definitely one of the most helpful features."
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"The IPS is good. It protect my network from attackers."
"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 performance has been good overall."
"The reporting features are very good."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos Cyberoam UTM is the SD-WAN gateway."
"The dashboard is very good-looking and offers maximum features. If a customer's website has a problem, we can guide them over the phone because they can easily find the specific option on the dashboard. That's why we suggest buying Sophos."
"There are plenty of features available, such as Full Guard and WAN."
"The main features I have found best are the load balancer and ease of use."
"Cyberoam UTM's most valuable feature is that it can be configured any way you like."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"Usually, we sell the bundle with the UTM or threat management piece with IPS, IDS. Other providers, such as Palo Alto, are ahead in terms of safe functionality. So, for me, delivering truly safe service is probably something that still needs to be improved."
"Monitoring and reporting could be better."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"Vulnerability scanning could be improved."
"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."
"It's my understanding that more of the current generation features could be brought in. There could be more integration with EDRs, for example."
"There are just some services that aren't available. For example, the Ethernet or point-to-point protocols. They could add these services to their product offering - especially services for ISPs."
"The ease of use 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."
"On-box sandstorm should be available. As of now, it is from their cloud."
"The reporting part could be more user-friendly for troubleshooting and identifying network issues. It should be more easy for a normal user to identify the problem in their network."
"The product fails to provide proper reports, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The setup is a bit complex, so we needed help from a consultant."
"The blocking needs to be improved."
"I have problems with the email filtering. Emails pass through without any filtering affecting them. When I get back to them and tell them this is the issue, they check everything and say it is not in their database signature and they have to update it. But you know, by that time, my user has already opened it."
"In my experience the solution can be easier to configure with more documentation, we need more training."
"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."
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 Untangle NG Firewall.
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.
