We performed a comparison between Sophos UTM and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sophos, Cisco, WatchGuard and others in Unified Threat Management (UTM)."The solution's sandboxing, application center, and database engine are good."
"The intrusion prevention is great, and I like dual virus scanning on the network layer because we scan it through Avira and Sophos. Web filtering is also a fantastic option for clients who want to really lock down internet access."
"The most valuable features of the solution are application filtering and web filtering."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"This is a very stable product."
"I like the web filtering options."
"It has helped by identifying threats within the company. If there are computers or servers that are compromised, then we are able to identify them right away in the system."
"Efficient and effective - it's easy to separate rules."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"The MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"Improved our systems and our customers' by providing better malware protection, defense against zero-day threats, and improved network security."
"The server appliance is good."
"If we are receiving spam emails, or other types of malicious email coming from a particular email ID, then we are able to block them using this solution."
"The features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"The documentation during the AWS integration was a little fuzzy on getting it to work with how the whole public exposure versus private exposure, then routing some of the traffic."
"It does have built-in policies, which enable you to disable USB devices, etc. It would be nice if they had more policies because there are not that many of them."
"There needs to be some improvement in the IPsec VPN. There is implementation only support. I have version one. I'd be most interested in having IP version two from the protocol."
"I didn't like it much. It suits only small businesses. It isn't scalable and reliable. There is a very critical issue with the power supply."
"The virus updates will always depend on new viruses that are discovered. Maybe they can send a notification or a reminder for update time."
"The application control is really bad. It needs a lot of enhancements. The traffic shaping and bandwidth control, and application control need a lot of work."
"Sophos UTM's internet security could be better."
"There were a lot of features and functionality in Sophos SG UTM but nothing was state of the art in terms of technology. You did not get the latest functions. It was very monolithic as it was based on an old Linux PuTTY system."
"I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet."
"It doesn't connect with the cloud, advanced machine learning is not there. A known threat can be coming into the network and we would want the cloud to look up the problem. I would also like to see them develop more file replication and machine learning."
"Technical packaging could be improved."
"Improvements could be achieved through greater integration capabilities with different firewall solutions. Integrating with the dashboard itself for different firewalls so users can also pull tags into their firewall dashboard."
"We'd like the potential for better scaling."
"It is not a very secure product."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"It would be great if we could create granular reports based on the protocols, types of attacks, regions of attack, etc. Also we would like to easily be able to add exceptions to rules in cases of false positives."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Sophos UTM is ranked 1st in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 110 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews. Sophos UTM is rated 8.4, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Sophos UTM writes "It's a highly stable platform with very few hardware issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Sophos UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, OPNsense and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiGate and Vectra AI.
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.
