Compare Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. Sophos XG
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 19 reviews while Sophos XG is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 14 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.4, while Sophos XG is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "The product stability and level of security are second to none in the industry". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos XG writes "Gives us customizable policies, modifiable templates, and customized rules for single users". Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense and Azure Firewall, whereas Sophos XG is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos UTM and pfSense. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. Sophos XG report.
Sponsored | ||
 |
Most Helpful Review | ||||||||
|
|
| ||||||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. Sophos XG and other solutions. Updated: March 2020. 408,154 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:
Pros | ||
Unfortunately in Cisco, only the hardware was good. For us, the most valuable features are the IPX and the Sourcefire Defense Center module. That gives us visibility into the traffic coming in and going out, and gives us the heads-up if there is a potential outbreak or potential malicious user who is trying to access the site. It also helps us see traffic generated by an end device trying to reach out to the world. The information coming from Talos does a good job... I like the fact that Cisco is working with them and getting the information from them and updating the firewall. The firepower sensors have been great; they do a good job of dropping unwanted traffic. The most important point is the detection engine which is now part of the next-generation firewalls and which is supported by Cisco Talos. The most valuable feature of this solution is AMP (Advanced Malware Protection), as this is really needed to protect against cyber threats. I like the Cisco ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager), which is the configuration interface for the Cisco firewall. The technical team is always available when we have problems. | This solution not only provides better security than flat VLAN segments but allows easy movement through the lifecycle of the server. This is arguably the best security protection that you can buy. The initial setup was very easy. The most valuable features are the threat prevention and policy-based routing features. We have found the application control to be the most valuable feature. Also, Layer 7, because all other products are working up to the maximum capacity. But Palo Alto is benefiting us, especially in application control management. We are able to differentiate between Oracle traffic and SQL traffic. The solution is scalable I found Palo Alto NG firewalls more intuitive compared to other products. I value the capability to identify a cloud solution. Comments have some delay, but overall, it's a good product. | This kind of strategic technology makes it much easier to remove malware and address vulnerabilities quickly. All of the features are amazing, especially Sandstorm, which prevents bad traffic or downloaded files from reaching our customers' and partners' networks. We are able to trace any user and pinpoint any vulnerability or any malicious software. We are able to synchronize between the local and active directories so we can catch users easily through their login names and IDs. Price-wise the solution offers acceptable rates. You can find cheaper solutions on the market but when you go cheaper you have fewer features. Today, based on iQuate market the price is very reasonable and affordable, and it's good if you get a good discount. Discounts can be offered by the vendor. If it's a competitive upgrade which means the customer is upgrading from another vendor, Sophos provides extra discount so they can win the deal. In general, it is a good price. I like the fact that it can self remove malware and do updates on the cloud via Sophos Central. The solution seems pretty stable. We've had no issues so far. What I like about his program, is that it is easy to use and easy to manage. The filtering is very easy to do. You can segment and create profiles for usage very easily. |
Cons | ||
In NGFW, Cisco should be aligned with the new technology and inspection intelligence because Cisco is far behind in this pipeline. We were also not too thrilled when Cisco announced that in the upcoming new-gen ASA, iOS was not going to be supported, or if you install them, they will not be able to be managed through the Sourcefire. However, it seems like Cisco is moving away from the ASA iOS to the Sourcefire FireSIGHT firmware for the ASA. We haven't had a chance to test it out. Our latest experience with a code upgrade included a number of bugs and issues that we ran into. So more testing with their code, before it hits us, would help. The software was very buggy, to the point it had to be removed. Most users do not have awareness of this product's functionality and features. Cisco should do something to make them aware of them. That would be quite excellent and useful to organizations that are still using legacy data-center-security products. I have found that Cisco reporting capabilities are not as rich as other products, so the reporting could be improved. The Sandbox and the Web Censoring in this solution need to be improved. It will be nice if they had what you traditionally would use a web application scanner for. If the solution could take a deeper look into HTTP and HTTPS traffic, that would be nice. | I wish that the Palos had better system logging for the hardware itself. The only real drawback to this product is that it is expensive. But you get what you pay for and there is no way to put a price on top-notch security. The advanced manual protection needs to be improved a little bit because they used to make a cloud manual analysis for the cloud. I think they need to have a proper hardware version for a smaller enterprise. We had to go to a very high-end version which is very expensive. If we chose the lower-end version, it would not meet our goals. A middle-end is missing in its portfolio. The solution needs some management tool enhancements. It could also use more reporting tools. The support could be improved. The scalability compared to other products is not good. You need to change the box whenever you want your number of connection sessions to increase. We need better affiliations for profiling the user. | It would be great if the user can have a portal to check on activities related to their account. Network security is in need of improvement. 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. They should expand their DDoS feature. It's basic. They need to enhance it. On reports, they sometimes give a summary, but it lists different users as unknown. There are times that I really want to know which user or which IP is causing a problem. It's easy to use, but it's hard to configure exact settings. They need to make it easier to access advanced features. The program is rather expensive. The UTM itself needs improvement. When you're navigating it seems like it takes forever to load anything. The hardware is okay. It's just the software that could be more responsive. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | ||
Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions. Pricing varies on the model and the features we are using. It could be anywhere from $600 to $1000 to up to $7,000 per year, depending on what model and what feature sets are available to us. We used Check Point and the two are comparable. Cost was really what put us onto the ASAs... the price tag for Check Point was exorbitantly more than what it is for the ASA solution. We are in the process of renewing our three-year license, which costs approximately $24,000 USD for the thirty-six months. The pricing for Cisco products is higher than others, but Cisco is a very good, strong, and stable technology. The program is very expensive. The cost of this solution is high. Some of our customers would be more likely to standardize on Cisco equipment if the cost was lower because a lot of people install cheap equipment. | The product is expensive compared to competing products but uses a similar type of pricing model based on hardware, software and maintenance. The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that. Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have. It will be worth your time to hire a contractor to set it up and configure it for you, especially if you are not very knowledgeable with PA firewalls. Pricing is yearly, but it depends. You could pay on a yearly basis, or every three years. If you want to add a device or two, there would be an additional cost. Also, if you want to do an assessment, or other similar add-on, you have to pay accordingly for the additional service. Annually, the licensing costs are too much. | We are paying about $1,500 yearly for the Enterprise Plus. As far as I know, there aren't costs above this standard fee. It's a suitable price and license. For licensing the XG 210, we paid approximately $3000 for three years. There are no additional fees on top of this. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs. 408,154 professionals have used our research since 2012. | ||
Answers from the Community | ||
Top Comparisons | ||
 Compared 38% of the time.  Compared 10% of the time. Compared 10% of the time. | Compared 29% of the time.  Compared 12% of the time.  Compared 12% of the time. | Compared 19% of the time.  Compared 18% of the time. Compared 12% of the time. |
Also Known As | ||
| Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire Firewalls | Palo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series | |
Learn | ||
| Cisco | Palo Alto Networks | Sophos |
Overview  | ||
Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) is Cisco's end-to-end software solution and core operating system that powers the Cisco ASA product series. This software solution provides enterprise-level firewall capabilities for all types of ASA products, including blades, standalone appliances and virtual devices. Adaptive Security Appliance provides protection to organizations of all sizes, and allows end-users to access information securely anywhere, at any time, and through any device. Adaptive Security Appliance is also fully compatible with other key security technologies, and so provides organizations with an all-encompassing security solution. Block more threats and quickly mitigate those that do breach your defenses with the industry’s first threat-focused NGFW. | Palo Alto Networks' next-generation firewalls secure your business with a prevention-focused architecture and integrated innovations that are easy to deploy and use. Now, you can accelerate growth and eliminate risks at the same time. | Sophos XG Firewall is next gen firewall that is optimized for today’s business, delivering all the protection and insights you need in a single, powerful appliance that’s easy to manage. |
Offer | ||
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW | Learn more about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls | Learn more about Sophos XG |
Sample Customers | ||
| There are more than one million Adaptive Security Appliances deployed globally. Top customers include First American Financial Corp., Genzyme, Frankfurt Airport, Hansgrohe SE, Rio Olympics, The French Laundry, Rackspace, and City of Tomorrow. | SkiStar AB, Ada County, Global IT Services PSF, Southern Cross Hospitals, Verge Health, University of Portsmouth, Austrian Airlines, The Heinz Endowments | Information Not Available |
Top Industries | ||
Financial Services Firm19% Manufacturing Company10% Comms Service Provider9% Software R&D Company6% Software R&D Company28% Comms Service Provider19% Media Company7% Government5% | Wholesaler/Distributor29% Financial Services Firm29% Construction Company14% Comms Service Provider14% Software R&D Company30% Comms Service Provider14% Construction Company7% Financial Services Firm6% | Mining And Metals Company20% Financial Services Firm20% Energy/Utilities Company10% Wholesaler/Distributor10% Software R&D Company21% Comms Service Provider19% Media Company11% Construction Company6% |
Company Size | ||
Small Business35% Midsize Enterprise25% Large Enterprise40% Small Business38% Midsize Enterprise19% Large Enterprise43% | Small Business48% Midsize Enterprise31% Large Enterprise21% | Small Business64% Midsize Enterprise21% Large Enterprise14% Small Business46% Midsize Enterprise28% Large Enterprise26% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. Sophos XG and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
408,154 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews, Sophos XG Reviews, and our list of Best Firewalls Companies.
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 is a robust system and a leader among firewall technologies. On the other hand, Sophos is not quite there yet. From my personal experience, Sophos lacks advanced features like a virtual firewall. However, price-wise PA is much more expensive. Im sure Sophos can fulfill all your basic network requirements. It is more of a qualitative vs quantative thing. Sophos devices provide high performance at a lower cost but as i mentioned earlier lacks advanced features like virtual firewall, and cloud management.
WildFire Data Sheet: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/resources/datasheets/wildfire
Please let me know if I can be of assistance I can have you speak with one of our Certified Palo Alto Engineers if you would like an in-depth overview of the Palo Alto Platform.
I like PA strategy which says Secure the core, Cloud and future. Its a holistic approach and all their solutions are in line with this strategy. If client is looking for a Long term security solution relationship he should go for PA. I am not well versed in Sophos solutions.