We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks K2-Series 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."I am "headache free" that I don't have to categorize all the websites and that security has been pre categorized by the people, and that the services are getting updated. At least one part of my problem is over."
"Fortigate represents a really scalable way of delivering perimeter network security, some level of layer 7 security, WAF, and also a way to create a meshed ADVPN solution."
"Secure, user-friendly, stable, and scalable network security solution. Installation is straightforward."
"This product is definitely scalable."
"FortiGate SD-WAN facilitated a smooth transition for our customers between their two internet service providers, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity without any downtime."
"The notable features that I have found most valuable are that it includes the antivirus, and also IPS, and even SD-WAN."
"The GUI is good."
"The security features that they have are quite good. On top of that, their licensing model is quite nice where they don't charge you anything for the SD-WAN functionality for the firewall."
"One of the most valuable features is Palo Alto's firewall management. We find it easier to manage the firewall centrally."
"The scalability of the product is quite high."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is its management abilities. Additionally, the updates are very good."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is the configuration, it is very clear."
"It caters to typical use cases across various technologies. MDR and XDR, for example, focus on user and endpoint protection. It's pretty straightforward."
"Palo Alto has an approach that makes the configuration easier not only for the customers but also for the IT help for the customers."
"As long as the solution is kept updated, it's pretty stable."
"Overall, this is a very simple and very effective firewall, and I am satisfied with it."
"Its portal is user-friendly. I am able to manage the user data and access control through this device."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is a very strong product with good support."
"Web Filtering and Application Filtering saves a lot of my bandwidth and improves the user's productivity."
"The main features I have found best are the load balancer and ease of use."
"I'm more inclined towards the conventional firewall. So for me, I'm more geared towards the standard firewall type functionalities as well as the web application firewall because that seems to work fine."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The most valuable features are the firewall section, the VPN, and how you control live users."
"Technical support is excellent."
"Currently, without the additional reporting module, we only have access to basic reporting."
"The web-cache feature which was previously on the FortiGate device, but was deleted with the recent upgrade should be returned. It was a very valuable feature for us."
"The integration with third-party tools may be something that they should work on."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"There is room for improvement related to the logging and reporting aspect."
"We were not able to build a full-mesh VPN; however, I am not sure if this was the fault of Fortinet FortiGate."
"The solution is very expensive."
"Due to its higher cost, Fortinet FortiGate can lead to increased operational expenses."
"In the past, we've had trouble with Palo Alto's application filtering not getting it right. I would not be recommending layer 7 application filtering yet."
"The password function of the solution could be improved. Additionally, some of the processes take too long to complete."
"It would be really helpful to have dashboards that provide information on IOC blockings such as where and how many. It will also be good to know how many hashing files have been reported. It would also be nice to have easy access to this information. Otherwise, it's a painful, manual task."
"Some users do not accept cloud-based data processing. They prefer on-premises functionality, especially for advanced threat analysis. While the general trend is moving towards cloud, specific customer needs should be considered. Perhaps certain functionalities, particularly in advanced threat analysis, could be offered as an on-premises option for those clients."
"Higher levels of support are excellent but new users may need additional options."
"They should implement the features that the other firewalls have."
"The product should get frequent updates allowing us to add new signatures."
"I would like to see the threat intelligence capability integrated with other vendors such as Cisco and Forcepoint."
"The product’s pricing has increased by approximately 45% in four months. This particular area needs improvement."
"The policy is a bit too vague."
"The product had a hang issue. We needed to reboot, recreate the image, and reconfigure the previous image because the product hanged frequently."
"When it comes to web filtering and application filtering, it does not contain enough signatures to determine all of the sites that need to be blocked."
"The technical support response time could be faster."
"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."
"Cyberoam configuration is done through the browser, which is one of the places that viruses spread."
"We have had some issues with technical support, which is an area that needs improvement."
Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is ranked 27th in Firewalls with 29 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 7th in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 81 reviews. Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is rated 8.4, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series writes "Easy to implement and manage, and the documentation is good". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "Stable and has a straightforward setup; reporting is fast and easy". Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos UTM, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Sophos XG. See our Palo Alto Networks K2-Series 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.
