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)."Has great security features and does a good job of protecting the network."
"It gives us the ability to manage our firewalls from the cloud and deploy a unified configuration onto them. Other competitors like Meraki have that ability, but they fail to optimize it in the way that Sophos has."
"The scalability is good."
"Sophos UTM provides security for our network here and access through a VPN connection for our remote users. It also offers the flexibility to create different tools for accessibility."
"The solution can scale."
"I like the web filtering options."
"It works well without any maintenance. So far, it has worked pretty well regardless of the traffic."
"The isolation of infected machines is a big feature. Also, the ability to detect external sources that change files on a file server is really big."
"The MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"The solution can scale."
"Over the thirteen years of using the product, we have not experienced a single compromise in our environment. During the COVID period, we faced numerous DDoS attacks, and the tool proved highly effective in mitigating these threats."
"Application categorization is the most valuable feature for us. Application filtering is very interesting because other products don't give you full application filtering capabilities."
"The features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."
"Initially, we didn't have much visibility around what is occurring at our applications lower level. For instance, if we are exposed to any malicious attacks or SQL injections. But now we've integrated FireEye with Splunk, so now we get lots of triggers based on policy content associated with FireEye. The solution has allowed for growth and improvement in our information security and security operations teams."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"The most valuable feature is the view into the application."
"Monitoring and reporting are areas that need improvement."
"The reporting could improve by providing information on where, or from which device attacks are coming from. We are already given the country where the attack is coming from but more information would be beneficial."
"Sophos should improve its ability to check something like bandwidth consumption for users or something more real-time."
"The support could be better."
"I would like some features that are available in other brands. For example, I sometimes a person is using too much bandwidth, and it isn't easy to find this information in Sophos. Also, we have to switch connections manually when we are using a VPN and lose the MPLS connection. It isn't automatic."
"It is a little too CPU resource intensive, so we would like to see improvements there."
"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."
"We didn’t find any issues but I know there have been some in the last few years."
"We'd like the potential for better scaling."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"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 is an expensive solution."
"There is a lot of room for Improvement in the offering, from cost to functionality. It is pretty straightforward to implement which is an advantage. However, it falls short in pricing, detection capabilities, and, most importantly, reporting and policy management."
"FireEye Network Security should have better integration with other vendors' firewalls or proxies, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet. Files that are being submitted should happen through the API or automatically."
"Technical support could be 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.