We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Network Security 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."It's super reliable. I don't think I've ever had a reliability issue with it."
"Offers good security and filtering."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"Web filtering and two-factor authentication are great features."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"I really like the captive portal feature for our guest network. It has nice VLAN features in terms of separating our network. The anti-virus is also good."
"The Intrusion Prevention System and the web filtering are both working well."
"The VPN is the most valuable feature."
"We have found the overall functionality of the product to be exactly similar to the physical product. The one good advantage is that it is cloud-based and can be deployed either as a part of a scale set or one can shut down the virtual machine and adjust the physical parameters of the virtual machine easily and bring it right back up."
"I like the firewall and the virtual machine. I also like that it's compatible with Amazon Web Services and Azure."
"It is a good-to-use tool that is also flexible."
"The solution has been quite stable."
"We have complete visibility of attacks originating from email including spear-phishing, spoofing, etc."
"I like the tool's ability to manage cloud traffic locally without routing it through our data centers."
"The solution helps protect network security by offering threat prevention, addressing vulnerabilities, and utilizing blades."
"Auto-scaling and zero touch are valuable features."
"This is a very stable product."
"They are all good, but most-used are Network Protection and Web Filtering."
"The product is extremely intuitive."
"The packet filtering's great. You get out what you put into it. It works great as long as you know your security and configure everything adequately. If you just pop one in and it's not configured, then it's basically wide open. It kind of depends on the admin skill, but it's an excellent product."
"The three most important features for us are web protection, web server protection, and network protection."
"The firewall itself is very strong and provides great security."
"It has helped by identifying threats within the company. If there are computers or servers that are compromised, then we are able to identify them right away in the system."
"The solution is scalable."
"The solution's framework needs to be frequently updated in order to have a stable solution."
"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."
"FortiGate support could do some improvements on their IPv6 configuration. Right now it's still in the very early stage for utilizing in an enterprise level network environment."
"I would like to see better pricing in the next release, as well as a simplification of the installation."
"Its reporting can be improved. Sometimes, I don't get proper reports."
"Palo Alto has a feature called WildFire Analysis that is unavailable in FortiGate. WildFire is better than a sandbox because it can address zero-day threats and vulnerabilities. It can immediately identify zero-day threats from the cloud."
"It is quite new for us, and we need to go more in-depth into the monitoring tools. It provides different features that we need to do what we want. So far, it is okay for us. In terms of improvement, in the future, they can provide a faster implementation of features. Some of the features are first available in other solutions. Fortinet sometimes takes a little bit longer than other solutions, such as Check Point, to implement new features."
"The sniffing packets or packet captures, can be simplified and improved because it's a little confusing."
"CloudGuard functions just like any other firewall. It functions very well. The only thing that could maybe be improved would be to integrate some tools that are not integrated with the SmartConsole, like the SmartView Monitor that we need to open on a different application to access."
"It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees."
"There is room for improvement in the integration with PaaS services from the public cloud. It would be very helpful."
"The business and product development team should introduce a high-end feedback collection mechanism and analyze the customer requirements constructively."
"Its price is fair, but it can be more favorable."
"The only pain points we have had with it were when we did major version upgrades. Rather than being able to do incremental upgrades on those, we had to completely redeploy. I know that has changed recently, but we had some hiccups when we did the upgrades. This is the only issue we have had."
"We have the product deployed on Azure China. One crucial concern is the version limitation; unfortunately, in Azure China, we are restricted to running version R80. Our architecture has a Load Balancer, VMSS CloudGuard, etc. The duplication in this setup prevents the application from seeing the original client IP. This poses a problem for certain applications that require the original IP for login purposes. Although we managed a workaround with a different architecture involving a WAF, it is not as straightforward as the standard Azure setup."
"CheckPoint CloudGuard could be better at solving cases."
"The technical support team’s response time could be improved."
"We would like to have unique viewable IDs for rules and in the packet filter logfile, for easier debugging of old log files."
"The product could be simplified and made more self-explanatory."
"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."
"The reporting could be a lot better."
"Initially, there were issues with the wireless network as wireless access points were disappearing from the dashboard after some time."
"Sophos customer support could use some improvement."
"Doesn't provide antivirus for individual computers."
More Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is ranked 5th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 121 reviews while Sophos UTM is ranked 1st in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 110 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is rated 8.6, while Sophos UTM is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security writes "Highly reliable, great visibility, and centralized management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos UTM writes "It's a highly stable platform with very few hardware issues". Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is most compared with Azure Firewall, VMware NSX, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco Secure Firewall and Fortinet FortiGate-VM, whereas Sophos UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, OPNsense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Check Point CloudGuard Network Security 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.