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 Check Point Software Technologies, Cisco, Sophos and others in Unified Threat Management (UTM)."We use Sophos UTM as our main firewall with all its features included. Mainly, it controls all of our network perimeter security: firewall, IDS/IPS, and web application firewall (including VoIP)."
"The solution is easy to handle and configure."
"The firewall itself is very strong and provides great security."
"Sophos UTM is very user-friendly and has good integration with other solutions."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos UTM is the efficiency and mail filtering module."
"I have no problem with the cost or licensing of this solution. This is a primary reason whay I wanted this solution. It does the same thing cheaper than other name brands."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos UTM is the simple-to-use interface."
"So far, the solution has been problem-free."
"We see ROI in the sense that we don't have to react because it stops anything from hurting the network. We can stop it before we have a bigger mess to clean up."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"The solution can scale."
"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."
"We wanted to cross-reference that activity with the network traffic just to be sure there was no lateral movement. With Trellix, we easily confirmed that there was no lateral network involvement and that nothing else was infected. It helped us correlate the events and feel confident in our containment."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"Flexibility in pricing could be improved. It's more rigid in its pricing compared to its competitor: Kaspersky."
"They could use more SSL VPN support."
"Doesn't provide antivirus for individual computers."
"There is absolutely no support when using AWS. If you buy the on-premise Sophos solution, you get support."
"We'd like to see them offer their services on mobile devices like tablets. I'm not sure if that's an option or not."
"In short, the UI and UX are the areas of improvement in Sophos UTM and similar solutions compared to Palo Alto."
"The technical support only communicates via email. I would prefer to communicate directly with someone."
"The management suite is easy and the agent is easy to develop."
"Technical packaging could be improved."
"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."
"Cybersecurity posture has room for improvement."
"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 product's integration capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"We'd like the potential for better scaling."
"If you want to search the hashes in the environment, you need to put in IOCs one by one, making it a very hectic job."
"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."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Sophos UTM is ranked 3rd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 110 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 37 reviews. Sophos UTM is rated 8.4, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.4. 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 "Offers in-depth investigation capabilities, integrates well and smoothly transitioned from a lower-capacity appliance to a higher one". 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, Fortinet FortiGate, Zscaler Internet Access 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.
