We performed a comparison between Sophos UTM and Sophos XGS 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."Fortinet FortiGate is user-friendly and affordable."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is the simple configuration."
"I like that you are able to manage FortiGate from the FortiManager to create a more centralized environment."
"The interface is very user-friendly and I like it very much."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the analytics."
"You can purchase switches and you don't need to do anything with them. You just put in the firewall and the switches get all the policies and rules that you already have in the firewall. With Fortinet, you just connect the FortiSwitch to the Fortinet and that's it."
"This is an easy solution to deploy."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is URL filtering."
"The solution is easy to handle and configure."
"The initial configuration is straightforward thanks to the web GUI. In 30 minutes, you can have a running firewall with UTM protection enabled."
"The initial setup has been fine."
"It improved bandwidth utilization and provided link load balancing features for internet and intranet lease lines."
"With over 150 firewalls in our portal, management and monitoring have never been easier."
"Scaling out cannot be easier, as there are many migration paths."
"Sophos is a unified solution. We have anti-virus protection, firewall rules, knotting, and DACC all in one box."
"It allows our developers to be able to securely log into servers to deploy and manage software."
"The centralized security is very good."
"Sophos XGS' best features are simplicity and its built-in reporting tool."
"The most valuable features of Sophos XGS are the ease of use and powerful interface."
"The solution is very user-friendly, and the GUI is so good that I don't have to use the CLI. This eliminates the need for typing; clicking allows me to get to what I'm looking for."
"Sophos XGS's most valuable feature is content filtering."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"It offers an easy initial implementation."
"The solution is scalable."
"The reports are very basic."
"It should come integrated or have its own type of network monitor tool in a module. There should just be one package, and you are good to go."
"You do need some IT knowledge in order to effectively work with the solution."
"Some of the features in the graphical user interface do not work, which requires that we used the command-line-interface."
"Some of the web policy reports could be improved."
"Fortinet doesn't provide multiple virtual firewalls which would facilitate end users and customers."
"The solution lacks sufficient filtering."
"Its reporting capabilities can be improved. It should have some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities and some degree of customization. The basic reporting that it currently has is not sufficient to create more usable reports. It needs some sort of out-of-the-box reporting. They try to make customers purchase FortiAnalyzer for this kind of reporting, which is an additional cost. Other firewall vendors, such as SonicWall and Sophos, provide this sort of reporting without any additional cost."
"I would like this solution to support ICAP. Also, they no longer support on-premises management, and are forcing clients to use centralized management via the cloud, which I don't agree with."
"Finding information about Sophos’ sizing guidelines can actually be difficult. Also, Sophos does not make it clear what they mean by “users” when you are sizing a firewall, which then leads to undersized implementations."
"Flexibility in pricing could be improved. It's more rigid in its pricing compared to its competitor: Kaspersky."
"The technical support team’s response time could be improved."
"The reporting could improve by providing information on where, or from which device attacks are coming from. We are already given the country where the attack is coming from but more information would be beneficial."
"The initial setup was straightforward. The full deployment takes approximately two days which could be simplified to reduce the time. The major part of the process is the configuration and the policy setup."
"Reporting: We have had to work manually in many of our reports."
"In Sophos UTM there is always a problem with the routing tables. If you want to see the routing table, you have to use the UI. You can't do it via a web browser. The routing table is better in Fortinet."
"There are issues with some designs being able to work on high availability."
"Compared to Fortinet, the cost is high."
"We'd always like the solution to be a bit less in terms of cost."
"Sophos XGS could be improved by adding a built-in hyper-converged solution."
"There can be lag time when updating an operating policy."
"Sophos configurations are a bit complex."
"They need intelligent reporting, not just your simple, standard reports."
"When it comes to different interfaces there is some speed issue that can be improved in Sophos XGS."
Sophos UTM is ranked 1st in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 110 reviews while Sophos XGS is ranked 18th in Firewalls with 58 reviews. Sophos UTM is rated 8.4, while Sophos XGS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Sophos UTM writes "It's a highly stable platform with very few hardware issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos XGS writes "Highly stable, scalable, and priced well". Sophos UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, OPNsense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Meraki MX, whereas Sophos XGS is most compared with Sophos XG, OPNsense, Netgate pfSense, WatchGuard Firebox and Check Point NGFW. See our Sophos UTM vs. Sophos XGS 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.