We performed a comparison between Huawei NGFW and Sophos UTM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Unified Threat Management (UTM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."All of the features of Fortinet FortiGate are useful and the security protection is good."
"The wireless control is helpful."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"Easy to use support and licensing portal as well as activation process."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and the UI. It has always provided me with what I needed. I have no need for additional costs that other solutions have, such as Sophos."
"This is an easy solution to deploy."
"The next-generation firewall is great."
"Fortinet FortiGate is stable. It's used across all the countries, this is the way most multinationals run their system."
"The security is good. It's as effective as anything else on the market."
"We have found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"The most useful feature is the performance of the firewalls and networking operations."
"The support for the solution has been excellent. If we ever had an issue they would send an engineer to help us with our problem."
"The user interface is very, very good."
"Huawei was able to assist us in the installation of their product. The installation was very fast."
"The solution's performance is good with IPSec."
"The tool helps us to integrate with other brands."
"The scalability is good."
"It makes it a lot easier for us to maintain things. Prior to it, things were more difficult. This means less time on us. We can focus on other things. The recovery is more in man-hours for us than anything else."
"Monitoring and reporting are areas that need improvement."
"It's easy to use."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"I like the web filtering options."
"The stability of Sophos UTM is very good. The solution has been stable since Sophos took over Cyberoam which was the original company providing this solution."
"Efficient and effective - it's easy to separate rules."
"It claims it does DLP, but the degree and level of controls are very basic."
"There are problems with the custom reporting of the unique traffic. The data is there, but it is too difficult for us to extract."
"The non-error conserve mode has room for improvement."
"Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it."
"Security is a continuous process. In every product, there is a requirement for improvement. Its pricing should also be improved according to Indian market requirements. They must also improve on the reporting part. Its reporting can be more precise. If we can get a real-time report in a specific format, it will be helpful for customers to know about the current status of their security."
"Its customer service could be better."
"They should offer special pricing to premium partners and customers."
"There aren't really any negative aspects to discuss."
"The solution could be more secure and have better integration."
"The documentation needs to be improved. When they retire old models, they also retire the documentation. However, if you are still using an older model, you still need access to that documentation. And yet, they go ahead and removed it. It's gone. You are therefore stuck with a device with no documentation and technical support that isn't very helpful as they also remove support assistance as well."
"The solution isn't cheap. It's market price."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly."
"I would like to see an antivirus solution included with the product."
"The solution requires a more interactive dashboard. That would make it easier than playing with configurations the way we have to now."
"The IPS feature must be improved."
"There needs to be more security equipment for the solution."
"I don't really have any notes for improvements."
"I would like to see the SD-WAN feature improved."
"Reporting: We have had to work manually in many of our reports."
"There is still room for improvement in wireless protection. I don't mean their WiFi device is bad, but there are still things to improve on, such as WiFi roaming."
"The five-factor authentication needs improvement."
"Sophos UTM's firewall is a bit weak, and some of its features lack depth compared to other products like F5."
"The ease of use could be a bit better."
"Sophos UTM sometimes falls short in high-availability environments. They used to launch firmware that didn't work very well in a high-availability environment."
Huawei NGFW doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 18 reviews while Sophos UTM is ranked 1st in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 110 reviews. Huawei NGFW is rated 7.2, while Sophos UTM is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Huawei NGFW writes "A scalable and easy-to-setup product that can be used to configure different policies for specific users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos UTM writes "It's a highly stable platform with very few hardware issues". Huawei NGFW is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Meraki MX and Sophos XG, whereas Sophos UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, OPNsense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Huawei NGFW vs. Sophos UTM report.
See our list of best Unified Threat Management (UTM) vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
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.
