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."From the firewall perspective, the rules and policies are very sufficient and easy to use."
"The interface is very good."
"The usage in general is pretty good."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"You can purchase switches and you don't need to do anything with them. You just put in the firewall and the switches get all the policies and rules that you already have in the firewall. With Fortinet, you just connect the FortiSwitch to the Fortinet and that's it."
"Valuable features include the Web Application Firewall, and it even has DLP (data leak prevention)."
"The most important feature, normally for small business customers, is link load balancing."
"The ability to set up remote systems is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"Web and content filtering are valuable in preventing people from abusing the network and pushing up the bandwidth price."
"The solution's interface is user-friendly, and the web protection is good. The tool is highly stable. The product is scalable. The technical support is good. We chose Sophos Cyberoam UTM because their focus on security research is higher compared to other brands. It's an all-in-one solution with antivirus, EDR, wireless protection, and web protection integrated into one box. The initial setup was straightforward."
"Our customers find it economical and offers good security. These two features are key. Ease of installation and implementation are also key factors."
"The solution is easy to integrate."
"We have never had to restart a firewall. The firewalls have all worked perfectly fine."
"The main features I have found best are the load balancer and ease of use."
"There are plenty of features that are valuable in the Sophos Cyberoam UTM. We use all the features, such as email Security, firewall rules, web server security, web devices, web protection."
"Bandwidth Management and aggregation. It is valuable for combining two ISPs. Switching to a secondary/redundant ISP is thus seamless, in the event that the primary ISP goes down. The Bandwidth Management is also valuable for limiting heavy downloaders that may impact negatively on the experience of other users."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"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."
"Vulnerability scanning could be improved."
"We would like to see an upgrade to the VPN feature, we are using the VPN from outside of our office and there is a limitation to 10 connections, more connections would be suitable."
"Web security solutions can be improved."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"The user interface could be improved to make it less confusing and easier to set up."
"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."
"SD-WAN should be included in the tool."
"We use different workarounds and find different solutions for it, depending on the client's needs. We shouldn't have to, we should just be able to use the product as it comes with Cyberoam, rather than having to revert to other products."
"The documentation is not straightforward."
"There needs to be more documentation that users can access to help them understand the solution or troubleshoot as necessary."
"On-box sandstorm should be available. As of now, it is from their cloud."
"The data support response time should be improved."
"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."
"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."
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.
