We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall 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 features that we have found most valuable are the SSL VPN and the User Portal."
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"We use the FortiGate Sandbox to detect zero-day vulnerabilities, such as anomalies or malware, that are unknown and have not yet been discovered."
"We've found the solution to be pretty stable."
"The most valuable feature is the FortiManager for centralized management."
"The feature I like most is the SD-WAN. It allows you to manage more than one ISP at the same time. And there is a high-availability mode, so if one of your ISPs is down, you still have a backup."
"The most valuable feature is the web filter."
"The solution is easy to configure and maintain remotely."
"It is a secure product."
"Provides good integrations and reporting."
"The most valuable feature is that it has the ability to divide the network into three parts; internal, external, and DMZ."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the integrations and IPS throughput."
"Web filtering is a big improvement for us. The previous version we used, the AC520, did not have that feature included. It was not very easy for us, especially because the environment had to be isolated and we needed to get updates from outside, such as Windows patches. That feature has really helped us when we are going outside to pull those patches."
"The initial setup is easy."
"They wanted to leverage something which is equivalent that can give them the next gen features like application awareness and intrusion protection. So that is a major reason they were looking forward to this. The original ASA firewall did not have these features. This was the major reason the customer moved on to Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD). Now they can go ahead and leverage those functionalities."
"The most valuables feature of this product are given by the comprehensive VPN solutions it offers and its tools for troubleshooting and debugging."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The main features I have found best are the load balancer and ease of use."
"Our customers find it economical and offers good security. These two features are key. Ease of installation and implementation are also key factors."
"The performance has been good overall."
"The tool's robust features allow for the customization of policies, objects, and firewall settings."
"Its portal is user-friendly. I am able to manage the user data and access control through this device."
"The product, itself, doesn't seem to have any bugs or glitches."
"Content filtering, as this enables me to control that which employees can view at different time quotas."
"It could use more templates for third-party site-to-site VPN setups other than FortiGate and Cisco."
"WAN load-balancing could be a lot better at detecting when a link is poor or inconsistent, and not just flat out dead."
"They need to improve their technical support."
"There are a lot of bugs I have found in the solution and it is difficult to upgrade. These areas need improvement."
"It would be nice if FortiGate incorporated some built-in endpoint protection features. I would also like a built-in SOC dashboard for managing multiple Fortinet firewalls."
"Reporting is limited to providing an external appliance for improving the reporting capabilities of the FortiAnalyzer. It does not offer a central management and is also sold separably as an appliance."
"The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture."
"I would prefer to have more detailed logs within the FortiGate products themselves rather than relying on a separate tool."
"We only have an issue with time sync with Cisco ASA and NTP. If the time is out of sync, it will be a disaster for the failover."
"We had an event recently where we had inbound traffic for SIP and we experienced an attack against our SIP endpoint, such that they were able to successfully make calls out... Both CTR, which is gathering data from multiple solutions that the vendor provides, as well as the FMC events connection, did not show any of those connections because there was not a NAT inbound which said either allow it or deny it."
"I would like to see an IE version of the solution where it is ruggedized."
"They should improve their interface."
"The Firepower FTD code is missing some old ASA firewalls codes. It's a small thing. But Firepower software isn't missing things that are essential, anymore."
"An area of improvement for this solution is the console visualization."
"The service could use a little more web filtering. If I compare it to Cyberoam, Cyberoam has more the web filtering, so if you want to block a website, it's easier in other solutions than in Cisco."
"You have to know the ASA command line very well because not all operations are available in the graphical interface"
"We have had some issues with technical support, which is an area that needs improvement."
"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."
"Network visibility is an area in the solution with shortcomings where improvements can be made."
"The product strategy of the manufacturer is strange. I don't understand what they are doing in that regard."
"The reports need to be more detailed and granular."
"I would say there's room for improvement in terms of the GUI. Because it is better than some of the other standard firewalls. They have the drag and drop features."
"There needs to be more documentation that users can access to help them understand the solution or troubleshoot as necessary."
"The product needs to improve its pricing."
Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Firewalls with 404 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 81 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall is rated 8.2, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall writes "Highlights and helps us catch Zero-day vulnerabilities traveling across our network". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "Stable and has a straightforward setup; reporting is fast and easy". Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Untangle NG Firewall and Sophos XG. See our Cisco Secure Firewall 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.
