Compare Sophos Cyberoam UTM vs. pfSense

pfSense is ranked 2nd in Firewalls with 18 reviews while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is ranked 22nd in Firewalls with 10 reviews. pfSense is rated 8.8, while Sophos Cyberoam UTM is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of pfSense writes "The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Cyberoam UTM writes "Web and content filtering, and bandwidth monitoring help keep bandwidth costs in check". pfSense is most compared with Sophos UTM, OPNsense and Fortinet FortiGate, whereas Sophos Cyberoam UTM is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos UTM and Sophos XG. See our Sophos Cyberoam UTM vs. pfSense report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cisco ASA NGFW Logo
70,004 views|52,209 comparisons
pfSense Logo
89,807 views|73,209 comparisons
Sophos Cyberoam UTM Logo
13,622 views|10,876 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Ersin Bostancı
Find out what your peers are saying about Sophos Cyberoam UTM vs. pfSense and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
378,397 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
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.Unfortunately in Cisco, only the hardware was good.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 features are the flexibility and level of security that this solution provides.Integration with all the other Cisco tools is valuable.We moved from a legacy firewall to the ASA with FirePOWER, increasing our Internet Edge defense dramatically.

Read more »

This solution has increased the level of security, given us more control, provided a deep insight into network traffic, and is a great VPN solution.This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks.I had some outages in the network and we provide services for our company. We sell mobile credits. The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up and we have a back-up link on the devices.My company mainly works in the health and educational domain, schools and universities. I prevent the improper use of content from schools and universities. I defend the medical records for the patients in our hospitals. That is the main use case for me for the firewall.We generally use it because it's cheap. When we need something more robust we use Barracuda and Sony Wireless Routers. For certain clients, we use pfSense because it's compatible with the VoIP platform.Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it.There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support.The ability to perform packet captures on the command line and via the GUI is useful for diagnosing problems.

Read more »

The most valuable feature of this product is the threat protection.It is a VPN that serves all your needs as an application firewall.Web and content filtering are valuable in preventing people from abusing the network and pushing up the bandwidth price.We have never had to restart a firewall. The firewalls have all worked perfectly fine.The best feature is the flexibility the product offers, in terms of remote access. What we had before was a decentralized mechanism in our organization, but after having this product we were able to get the remote locations into the same LAN. We were able to control the bandwidth and were able to take virtual access of those machines and give them the support, as and when required.Bandwidth Management and aggregation. It is valuable for combining two ISPs. Switching to a secondary/redundant ISP is thus seamless, in the event that the primary ISP goes down. The Bandwidth Management is also valuable for limiting heavy downloaders that may impact negatively on the experience of other users.The product has helped control bandwidth utilization, as well as enhanced connectivity and security to remote locations.User and network policies to be managed on a single screen with powerful filtering and search options.

Read more »

Cons
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.In NGFW, Cisco should be aligned with the new technology and inspection intelligence because Cisco is far behind in this pipeline.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.There was an error in the configuration, related to our uplink switches, that caused us to contact technical support, and it took a very long time to resolve the issue.With regards to stability, we had a critical bug come out during our evaluation... not good.The product would be improved if the GUI could be brought into the 21st Century.

Read more »

We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs.This product needs improvements with respect to reporting and auditing.Adjustment in the interfaces: I had to adjust those interfaces manually and of course that is a great feature that you can restore it but it is immediately also one point for improvement. If you don't have to adjust, if it's just stamped and it works, that's great.pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly.I would like to see SD1 integration into the software. That would be fantastic.It needs better parsing of logs. At the moment, you have to use an external server for this if you want a deeper analysis.I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces.It is not centrally managed, where you log into the website and can see all your services there. We would like to be able to see is all the configurations from a central interface on all our pfSenses.

Read more »

The reporting should be improved as well as the backup.Its scalability is not that great.Cyberoam configuration is done through the browser, which is one of the places that viruses spread.Once in a while, an unwanted email will slip in. You have to set your parameters to avoid that happening, but once in a while, an email has slipped past firewall. Once you update the firmware, you notice that it doesn't happen. If an email slips in, I get a little bit worried. I do get the report, but you just don't want that situation happening in the first place.I would like to see a better content management pack and also the website searching should be better.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.There is a lot or room for improvement, because it is still not a fourth or fifth generation firewall. It lacks security features.Needs a mail alert/notification when the device loses any of its connections, during ISP redundancy implementation.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
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.Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions.Watch out for hidden licensing and incredibly high annual maintenance costs.We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement.The cost is a big factor for us. This is why we are using it only in our restricted area. They are very much higher than their competitors in the market.Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions.Pricing is high, but it is essentially a corporate decision.

Read more »

All costs are low compared to other solutions. The hardware is stable and cheap.There is no licensing fee except for the enterprise support, if you want it.This solution was about $150,000 cheaper than the closest competitor over a three year period.It is a free solution.It is economical (i.e., free).From Sonic Wall, their price is much higher, because for every feature that you want to add, you have to pay. I can do the same things with pfSense, but everything is included in one price.There are a few features not included, and when you have to use those features, you have to pay for them.It is an open source solution. Therefore, the price is good.

Read more »

I have no comment about the pricing.Prices are very high.It is worth the value.It’s value for the money. It’s functionally competitive with higher priced alternative brands.The price is very competitive and the licensing is easy.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
378,397 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 39% of the time.
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 22% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA
Learn
Cisco
pfSense
Video Not Available
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.

Providing comprehensive network security solutions for the enterprise, large business and SOHO, pfSense solutions bring together the most advanced technology available to make protecting your network easier than ever before. Our products are built on the most reliable platforms and are engineered to provide the highest levels of performance, stability and confidence.Cyberoam Unified Threat Management hardware appliances offer comprehensive security to organizations, ranging from large enterprises to small and branch offices. Multiple security features integrated over a single, Layer 8 Identity-based platform make security simple, yet highly effective.
Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about pfSense
Learn more about Sophos Cyberoam UTM
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.Nerds On Site Inc., RKC Development Inc., Expertech, Fisher's Technology, Ncisive, Consulting, CPURX, Vaughn's Computer House Calls, Imeretech LLC, Digital Crisis, Carolina Digital Phone, Technigogo Technology Services, The Simple Solution, SwiftecITInc, Rocky Mountain Tech Team, Free Range Geeks, Alaska Computer Geeks, Lark Information Technology, Renaissance Systems Inc., Cutting Edge Computers, Caretech LLC, GoVanguard, Network Touch Ltd, P.C. Solutions.Net, Vision Voice and Data Systems LLC, Montgomery Technologies, Techforce, Concero Networks, ASONInc, CPS Electronics and Consulting, Darkwire.net LLC, IT Specialists, MBS-Net Inc., VOICE1 LLC, Advantage Networking Inc., Powerhouse Systems, Doxa Multimedia Inc., Pro Computer Service, Virtual IT Services, A&J Computers Inc., Envision IT LLC, CommunicaONE Inc., Bone Computer Inc., Amax Engineering Corporation, QPG Ltd. Co., IT 101 Inc., Perfect Cloud Solutions, Applied Technology Group Inc., The Digital Sun Group LLC, FirespringGulf Corporation for Technology, Maridive & Oil Services, Fidelity Bank, Petra University, Capital FM Kenya, Safari Park Hotel and Casino, Mayfair Casino, Pacific International Lines, Mozambique Ministry of Education, University of Namibia, Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability, University of Hawai, New Delhi Municipal Council
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm17%
Comms Service Provider11%
Manufacturing Company11%
University8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company28%
Comms Service Provider16%
Media Company8%
Retailer5%
REVIEWERS
University19%
Comms Service Provider14%
Energy/Utilities Company10%
Construction Company10%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company20%
Comms Service Provider15%
Media Company9%
Manufacturing Company7%
REVIEWERS
Manufacturing Company13%
Engineering Company7%
Wholesaler/Distributor7%
Energy/Utilities Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm22%
Software R&D Company21%
Manufacturing Company10%
Comms Service Provider9%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise39%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business35%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise44%
REVIEWERS
Small Business67%
Midsize Enterprise19%
Large Enterprise14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business44%
Midsize Enterprise43%
Large Enterprise13%
REVIEWERS
Small Business47%
Midsize Enterprise29%
Large Enterprise24%
Find out what your peers are saying about Sophos Cyberoam UTM vs. pfSense and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
378,397 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email