Compare Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. Sophos Email Appliance

Cisco Email Security (ESA) is ranked 1st in Messaging Security with 15 reviews while Sophos Email Appliance is ranked 6th in Messaging Security with 6 reviews. Cisco Email Security (ESA) is rated 8.6, while Sophos Email Appliance is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Email Security (ESA) writes "Black-listing and white-listing are highly intuitive and easy to do". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Email Appliance writes "Email security that protects your business from malicious intrusions effectively". Cisco Email Security (ESA) is most compared with FireEye Email Security, Fortinet FortiMail and Proofpoint Email Protection, whereas Sophos Email Appliance is most compared with Fortinet FortiMail, Barracuda Email Security Gateway and Proofpoint Email Protection. See our Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. Sophos Email Appliance report.
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. Sophos Email Appliance and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,538 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

The most valuable features are Advanced Malware Protection, URL filtering, and of course Reputation Filtering.Anti-Spam and Advanced Malware Protection are the most valuable features... and we also have the option to block Zero-day attacks.Initially, the most valuable feature for us was the SenderBase Reputation, because that reduced the number of emails that were even considered by the system by a huge number...We like the in-built features, like the email filtering based on the IP and domain. Cisco has its own blacklisted domains and IPs, which is very good. This filters around 70 percent of emails from spam, and we are seeing fewer false positives with this.The most valuable feature is the different content filters we are using, such as DKIM.It has the IMS engine, Intelligent Multi-Scan engine, and it does a good job, right out-of-the-box, of blocking the vast majority of things that should be blocked.There were detailed logs available. That was a seriously good feature... It turns out these were actually spoof emails that came into our environment. I got to know about them from the log system.Users were able to do a check by themselves on quarantined emails. They could check if a valid email had been stopped, if it matched up with the SPF certification.

Read more »

The most valuable feature is the URL relay protection because it protects users from phishing attacks.The interface makes it really easy to administer and configure.The filtering aspect is the solution's most valuable feature.The ease of use and the security offered by the solution are its most valuable features. It also offers good information protection.This is a stable, scalable product that provides a reliable email protection layer.The solution is very easy to use, especially the cloud version which is very, very simple. There are some good templates already built-in, so we can just select the template, and you will get all the necessary functionality. The only one thing you have to do is point all your traffic in the cloud.

Read more »

The reporting functionality needs to be improved.The configuration UI should be made more intuitive. Currently, it takes a while to understand how to do the basic configurations.We have occasionally had hardware problems because we are using an appliance-based solution, but that might change. We may consider going to virtual systems.The solution needs to improve its advanced phishing filters. It is very good at filtering things which have bad reputations. However, when phishing or malicious emails are new or coming from a legitimate source, we don't feel that the solution is working.We would like to see more options for the customization of content filters.It would be nice to have an easier way to check on the health of the system, how stressed these appliances are. Sure, you can do it, but it would be helpful to have an easier way to do it, maybe even at a glance.They could improve the filters. In my time at the company, there were several times we had to contact support to update the filters.One of the things that Cisco could improve on with IronPort is the support. Cisco doesn't really have enough engineers who have full, hands-on knowledge of IronPort. Knowledge of it is not something you can find easily compared to other security appliances.

Read more »

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see more user awareness, such as information about phishing email attacks that have been prevented.The reporting functionality is in major need of improvement.There are a few issues with integration that need to be addressed; this would help make deployment easier for new users.There aren't enough advanced settings. They should offer more advanced options.Reporting could have more options for users to customize desired results.In the advanced version, you have DLP, Data Loss Prevention, but when you buy the standard version, you don't have it.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
It is not that costly. We pay for the solution through a contractor and pay an annual fee.We were using Proofpoint and then we switched to Cisco... reportability was one of the main reasons we switched, but the biggest one was cost. If you can get an equivalent functionality for a better price it's wise to do so. That's what our primary decision came down to: We could get equivalent functionality at a lower price point.There were no other costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.The license was not per user, the license model was per feature. You could choose anti-virus, anti-spam, etc. It was feature-based and charged yearly.Licensing costs depend on how many users there are. It could range between $5 and $7 per month, per user.Pricing depends on your environment and which model you want to buy.In addition to the standard licensing, there is a cost for SMARTnet as well.We do annual licensing for ESA and SMA together, and possibly SmartNet support. Packaged together, the cost is just under $38,000.

Read more »

Information Not Available
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Messaging Security solutions are best for your needs.
407,538 professionals have used our research since 2012.
out of 45 in Messaging Security
Average Words per Review
Avg. Rating
out of 45 in Messaging Security
Average Words per Review
Avg. Rating
Top Comparisons
Also Known As
IronPort, Cisco Email SecurityEmail Appliance

Customers of all sizes face the same daunting challenge: email is simultaneously the most important business communication tool and the leading attack vector for security breaches. Cisco Email Security enables users to communicate securely and helps organizations combat Business Email Compromise (BEC), ransomware, advanced malware, phishing, spam, and data loss with a multilayered approach to security.

Sophos' purpose-built secure email gateway is an all-in-one solution for email encryption, DLP, anti-spam and threat protection. It provides advanced protection from today’s sophisticated spear phishing attacks and gives you full control over data leaving your organization via email.

Learn more about Cisco Email Security (ESA)
Learn more about Sophos Email Appliance
Sample Customers
SUNY Old Westbury, CoxHealth, City of Fullerton, IndraInvestors Savings Bank
Top Industries
Energy/Utilities Company29%
Manufacturing Company14%
Hospitality Company7%
Energy/Utilities Company25%
Comms Service Provider22%
Software R&D Company16%
Media Company6%
No Data Available
Company Size
Small Business33%
Midsize Enterprise22%
Large Enterprise44%
Small Business6%
Midsize Enterprise77%
Large Enterprise17%
Small Business57%
Midsize Enterprise43%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. Sophos Email Appliance and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,538 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Messaging Security 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.