We performed a comparison between OPNsense and Sophos Cyberoam UTM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The email protection and VPN features are the most valuable."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"The solution is scalable."
"It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"There are lots of features and most of them are deployed for internet security. Users are protected if they accidentally go to some malicious sites."
"The SD-WAN function is very developed. It has SD-WAN functionality with security features in one device. We can manage from one single console SD-WAN and the security policy."
"The reporting and monitoring are very good."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"I feel that its valuable features are that it is simple and free."
"It's open source."
"The VPN server feature is the most valuable. It is integrated with Radius and AAA for doing accounting and authentication. Insight view is also an important feature for me at this time. It allows me to assess our network traffic. I also like the firewall feature. The BSD kernel has a packet filter. It is one of the most solid frameworks for firewalls. Its user interface is one of the best interfaces I have used."
"The feature I find most valuable, is that the program helped me to realize all the requested functionality that was needed."
"It has an open license. It works very well, and there is an update every month."
"OPNsense is easy to use and open source."
"The solution has high availability."
"The most valuable feature is the Dual WAN in OPNSense, which offers advanced capabilities."
"Sophos Cyberoam UTM is used for perimeter security, web filtering, intrusion prevention and as a VPN."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The firewall feature has different branches, such as extended firewalls."
"Web and content filtering are valuable in preventing people from abusing the network and pushing up the bandwidth price."
"There are plenty of features available, such as Full Guard and WAN."
"Bandwidth Management and aggregation. It is valuable for combining two ISPs. Switching to a secondary/redundant ISP is thus seamless, in the event that the primary ISP goes down. The Bandwidth Management is also valuable for limiting heavy downloaders that may impact negatively on the experience of other users."
"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."
"The VPN is excellent on the solution."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard and UI, as well as to the reporting."
"I would like to see more advanced developments of a wireless controller in the future."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"Technical support could be better. You don't always get the level of help you need right away."
"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."
"Fortinet doesn't provide multiple virtual firewalls which would facilitate end users and customers."
"There could be more integration between the logging and analytical platforms to make it more seamless and integrated."
"Some of the filtering is not robust, you can escape it with a VPN. Some of the users bypass some of the filters. It catches some but it also misses some, that area could be improved. It's functioning reasonably but there's room for improvement in that area."
"I would like better documentation concerning the provided packages and their integration."
"OPNsense could improve by making the configuration more web-based rather than shell or command-line-based."
"There is room for improvement in SSL inspection."
"I think the most important thing is that it should be easily accessible, but currently, that doesn't seem to be the case. We need a hardware platform that's based on common standards and open computing principles, which would be like a commodity and benefit us greatly."
"The IPS solution could be more reliable."
"The user interface could be improved, and the DNS section should be more intuitive."
"Given that OPNsense plays a pivotal role as a firewall, safeguarding against various threats, having a reliable backup ensures uninterrupted protection even if unforeseen events impact the primary virtual machine."
"The interface isn't so friendly user. But we have some technicians here who are quite confident with this tool. OPNSense could maybe add sets of rules so it's simpler to manage different groups with particular needs."
"I have problems with the email filtering. Emails pass through without any filtering affecting them. When I get back to them and tell them this is the issue, they check everything and say it is not in their database signature and they have to update it. But you know, by that time, my user has already opened it."
"The solution should improve its scalability because it cannot support enterprise networks."
"It is not a scalable product. This is because if you want to increase the capacity of the solution, then you have to change the device."
"The configuration requires an expert to be set up, so it could be made simpler."
"I had an issue when I was trying to stop a user from using too much bandwidth while I was using Azure, I was not able to stop them."
"Its scalability is not that great."
"The VPN needs to be improved."
"Cyberoam UTM needs to have more certifications with third-parties, such as NSS Labs."
OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 81 reviews. OPNsense is rated 8.4, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OPNsense writes "Robust network security and management offering a user-friendly interface, open-source flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, with challenges regarding initial setup and the absence of official support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "Stable and has a straightforward setup; reporting is fast and easy". OPNsense is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM and IPFire, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Sophos UTM and KerioControl. See our OPNsense vs. Sophos Cyberoam UTM report.
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.
