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."Using this product makes the VPN seamless and almost invisible to me in the sense that I don't have to think about it."
"Web filtering and two-factor authentication are great features."
"It has improved our organization with control data."
"User-friendly and affordable security solution that's recommended for SMB customers. This solution has good technical support."
"The most important feature, normally for small business customers, is link load balancing."
"The technical support in our region is excellent."
"The secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"The payment function for applications is good."
"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 solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the solution is easy to configure for users."
"The performance has been good overall."
"I find Sophos Cyberoam UTM very good. I like the feature of being able to block off Mac IDs that host users. For example, you have a Mac or Windows laptop and you created a hotspot. Other devices like mobiles and tablets e.g. iPads connected to that hotspot. We can block those devices that connected to the hotspot we created, only through Sophos. It's a good feature we didn't find in other UTMs."
"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."
"Its portal is user-friendly. I am able to manage the user data and access control through this device."
"Good user interface."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"Fortinet needs more memory to save the log files. We need it to save the logs on the hardware and not in the cloud. I know this feature is available in FortiCloud, but if we need this log locally, it is not available."
"The Web-filter in this solution is not very good."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding FortiAnalyzer to its solution, we should not have to use another solution. FortiAnalyzer can provide more detailed information."
"I haven't had a single issue since using Fortinet."
"The price of FortiGate should be reduced because there are some other leading products that are cheaper."
"There are a lot of bugs I have found in the solution and it is difficult to upgrade. These areas need improvement."
"In the balance between links feature normally you can just choose one option to balance. It would be better for the solution to have more than one option, preferably three."
"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."
"There needs to be more documentation that users can access to help them understand the solution or troubleshoot as necessary."
"The solution is at its end of life and some of the appliances are finishing."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM could improve by adding VPN site-to-site capabilities. The correct version does not work with Microsoft Azure Cloud."
"The configuration requires an expert to be set up, so it could be made simpler."
"Cyberoam configuration is done through the browser, which is one of the places that viruses spread."
"Hence, it needs to be easier to configure rules using the solution."
"The solution should improve its scalability because it cannot support enterprise networks."
"SD-WAN should be included in the tool."
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.