We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks and Sophos XG based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Palo Alto Networks comes out on top in this comparison. It is robust, performs well, and has good support. Sophos XG does, however, do better in the Pricing and Ease of Deployment categories.
"Security solution with a straightforward and quick setup. It's a stable and scalable product."
"The solution is easy to configure and maintain remotely."
"The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very user friendly. We are utilizing most of the features, like content filtering. The firewall is powerful."
"Fortinet FortiGate is easy to use."
"The pricing is excellent. It's much less expensive than Cisco."
"The product is very stable, easy to troubleshoot, and configure, so it has reduced the time it takes for support."
"Layer-3 firewall and routing are the most valuable features."
"It's very good and very stable for businesses. It works very well."
"It is critical that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. In my environments, we have an integration with a third-party vendor. As soon as there is new information about new threats and the destination that they are trying to reach on any of our network devices, that traffic will be stopped."
"I'm using most of its features such as antivirus, anti-spam, and WAF. I'm also using its DNS Security and DNS sinkhole features, as well as the URL filtering and application security features."
"Prisma Access is the most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls."
"We have not had to replace hardware routers nor purchase additional hardware. So, that has provided a little bit of an ROI."
"I found Palo Alto NG firewalls more intuitive compared to other products. I value the capability to identify a cloud solution."
"The first time I came across these firewalls, what surprised me the most was their web user interface. It is complete and gives you a lot of information. You can do 80% of the things related to your network and firewall through the web UI. In some of the other devices, the UI is not as complete. App-ID is also very valuable in customer networks. When you're seeing a lot of traffic in your network, you can see in your web UI which users have the applications that are consuming the most bandwidth. You have a broad context, which is very good."
"Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' IPS is more complete and is very good. This is a user-friendly solution that is easy to install, and it provides the best protection."
"We have found the SSL decryption within this solution to be great; you can enable this feature and have the ability to see more of what is happening across your network."
"We've deployed quite a number for our users and our customers, and the feedback is quite positive in terms of management and also administration."
"Compared to other firewalls that I had looked at, I thought Sophos was the better solution. It just seems to be easier to manage versus Cisco, Fortinet, or one of the other options I was looking at."
"The solution's most valuable feature stems from its ability to protect our organization's web servers."
"There are many features. VPN, firewalling, and intrusion detection are the main features that are most useful for us at this time."
"Sophos offers great disk encryption, anti protection, and the interface is very user-friendly."
"It is a very stable solution."
"The VPN features and its capabilities are great."
"The most valuable feature is the intrusion prevention system."
"It does not have key authentication for admin access."
"The Web-filter in this solution is not very good."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"Fortinet doesn't provide multiple virtual firewalls which would facilitate end users and customers."
"FortiGate is really good. We have been using it for quite some time. Initially, when we started off, we had around 70 plus devices of FortiGate, but then Check Point and Palo Alto took over the place. From the product perspective, there are no issues, but from the account perspective, we have had issues. Fortinet's presence in our company is very less. I don't see any Fortinet account managers talking to us, and that presence has diluted in the last two and a half or three years. We have close to 1,500 firewalls. Out of these, 60% of firewalls are from Palo Alto, and a few firewalls are from Check Point. FortiGate firewalls are very less now. It is not because of the product; it is because of the relationship. I don't think they had a good relationship with us, and there was some kind of disconnect for a very long time. The relationship between their accounts team and my leadership team seems to be the reason for phasing out FortiGate."
"I need user-behavior analytics, to find threat scenarios from inside the organization, insider attacks. That would be very helpful for us. In addition, I would like next-generation features for small and medium businesses. These businesses require UTM, all in one product. Fortinet must include it."
"I don't really have anything negative to say as far as Fortinet firewalls are concerned. If anything, they can support a user a little bit better. They can stop being so time-sensitive about how much time the support call has taken, and they can help you do it yourself."
"The stability, scalability for enterprise-level organizations, and technical documentation have room for improvement."
"There is a web-based GUI to do management, but you need to know how the machine or firewall operates. There are hundreds of different menus and options. I have used other firewalls before. Just implementing or designing a policy with Palo Alto, if you want a certain port to be open to different IP addresses, then that could take 20 to 25 clicks. That is just testing it out. It is quite complex to do. Whereas, with other places, you tell it, "Okay, I want this specific port open and this IP address to have access to it." That was it. However, not with Palo Alto, which is definitely more complex."
"PA-220 Next-Generation Firewall would be perfect if it has spam filtering."
"The areas that need to improve are network protection and user identification."
"From a documentation standpoint, there is room for improvement. Even Palo Alto says that their documentation is terrible."
"Need improvement with their logs, especially the command line interface."
"Palo Alto should improve their support. It's sometimes difficult to get the right technician or engineer to fix the problem as soon as possible."
"The machine learning in Palo Alto NG Firewalls for securing networks against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly is good, in general. But there have been some cases where we get false positives and Palo Alto has denied traffic when there have been new updates and signature releases. Valid traffic gets blocked. We have had some bad experiences with this. If there were an ability, before it denies traffic, to get some kind of notification that some traffic is going to be blocked, that would be good."
"We feel that the GUI can be improved a bit because it has a lot of information and looks a bit outdated."
"Recently, I've had a problem with updating things."
"It would be beneficial if the platform provided more flexible support for a variety of devices."
"Sophos can improve the debugging of the WAPS function."
"We are not very happy with the customer support they provide — it's quite slow."
"The logging side of it could definitely be better. Some of the logging lacks, and the information that they provide you, especially in the spam filtering section, could be better."
"The SD-WAN capability is not as good as it is in FortiGate, and is something that should be improved."
"There needs to be a way that we can distinguish between educational institutions on Youtube and other Youtube videos. You can do this on Fortinet. Basically, they can block all other Youtube videos besides those that are from educational institutions. With Sophos, you either allow for all Youtube videos or none at all. They need to allow for more specification on different websites."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 162 reviews while Sophos XG is ranked 7th in Firewalls with 192 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6, while Sophos XG is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos XG writes "Easy to use and deploy with an improved pricing structure in place". Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Netgate pfSense and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Sophos XG is most compared with Netgate pfSense, OPNsense, Sophos XGS, SonicWall TZ and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. Sophos XG 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.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have both great features and performance. I like that Palo Alto has regular threat signatures and updates. I also appreciate that I can just import addresses and URL objects from the external server. Palo Alto has a dedicated management interface, which makes it easy to manage the device and handle the initial configuration. It has fantastic throughput and its connection speed is pretty fair, even when dealing with a high traffic load. With Palo Alto I can configure and manage with REST API integration. And Palo Alto provides deep visibility into your network activity via Application and Command Control.
Although Palo Alto has great things going for it, there are a few things I dislike about it. For example, when the CPU is 100%, the GUI can take a very long time to respond. Booting time is also time-consuming, and committing the configuration takes more time than I would like it to.
Like Palo Alto, Sophos XG is quick and easy to configure. It is compact in size, and therefore does not weigh a lot either. Similar to Palo Alto as well, it can handle heavy traffic and has a solid performance. A good thing about Sophos XG is that it supports IPsec connection with multiple vendor firewalls. However, I am not impressed with the CLI which is not so useful, and I don’t like that there is no option to import bulk address objects.
Conclusion:
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Sophos XG are both good products. However, Palo Alto has certain features I really like and that’s why I chose it. For me, Palo Alto’s dynamic address group option is a big advantage because it is a huge time saver instead of having to create address groups manually. Another biggie for me was its DNS Sinkhole feature because it is something I rely on a lot and it is very effective in blocking C2 command control traffic.