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)."It's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos UTM is reporting, it is flexible. I can monitor the end user's devices, even when they are not on my network. It has good drill-down capabilities."
"This is a very stable product."
"Sophos UTM's most valuable features are profiling and its simple configuration."
"So far, the solution has been problem-free."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos UTM is the efficiency and mail filtering module."
"Configuration could not be made any easier."
"Monitoring and reporting are areas that need improvement."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"The scalability has not been a problem. We have deployed the product in very high bandwidth networks. We have never had a problem with the FireEye product causing latency issues within our networks."
"Its ability to find zero-day threats, malware and anything malicious has greatly improved my customer's organization, especially for protecting the users' browser."
"The features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"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 sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"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."
"When we call support, we get put on hold for a long time."
"I would like this solution to support ICAP. Also, they no longer support on-premises management, and are forcing clients to use centralized management via the cloud, which I don't agree with."
"We need a better VPN client for the customers."
"It would be nice if it had basic features, such as DLP (Data Loss Prevention)."
"The solution is not scalable."
"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."
"It needs a better user interface. The one they have is not so good."
"The product could be simplified and made more self-explanatory."
"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."
"As far as future inclusions, it would be useful to display more threat intelligence, such as the actual area of the threat and the origin of the web crawling (Tor and Dark Web)."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
"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."
"The problem with FireEye is that they don't allow VM or sandbox customization. The user doesn't have control of the VMs that are inside the box. It comes from the vendor as-is. Some users like to have control of it. Like what type of Windows and what type of applications and they have zero control over this."
"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."
"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
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.
