Sophos XG Reviews

We are using Sophos XG for remote two-factor authentication. We manage the web and application access, as well as the traffic. We also used it for remote, site-to-site VPNs.

The most valuable feature is the remote VPN.

The multifactor authentication is helpful because whenever the user wants to connect to the firewall, they have to use the authenticator before they can access it.

The LAN traffic management features such as implicit denial are very good.

Technical support can be slow to respond, which is something that should be improved.

In the future, I would like to see the addition of artificial intelligence for identifying and controlling traffic.

We have been using Sophos XG for the past year.

This is a reliable solution.

This product is scalable. We have approximately 400 users, spread across different departments. As our production increases and we onboard more users, we will extend the use of Sophos XG.

The technical support team is good but sometimes, there is a large delay in answering the phones.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We had assistance from the vendor during the onboarding process when the system was being set up. They spotted a lot of things during the implementation, which helped.

We get a return on this investment because the inbuilt two-factor authentication means that we don't need to purchase a third-party tool for this security feature.

The price is good and licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis.

We evaluated Cisco Firepower but we found that Sophos XG was more efficient in terms of cost. As such, we implemented XG.

This is a product that I can recommend for organizations with a medium-level or large-level infrastructure.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I like the web filter, application filter, and VBA. There are so many good features. The most powerful thing is clearly the software. I can easily do whatever I want.

Their updates can be faster and more regular. Right now, it's updated monthly. When I need to update the firmware, I want it done within weeks, not months. There are also some changes in version 18, like rules, that aren't needed.

Sophos XG is a very powerful and stable solution. It's more stable than Cyberoam.

Sophos XG is scalable.

Technical support is good and easy to deal with. If I have a problem, I open the ticket, and I call, and the problem's solved automatically by them.

We used Cyberoam ten years ago and then transferred to Sophos. We switched because it was the latest technology.

The initial setup was very easy because you can follow the manuals, follow your past experiences, and so on. We also need about three to six people a day to maintain this solution.

At first, I thought the price was very high. But when I read about the machine's features, we decided to go with it. Now I think the price is reasonable.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Sophos XG a nine.

Most of our clients are primarily using the solution for the network protection it offers them.

The most valuable aspects of the solution are the web-filtering and the application control.

The solution is stable.

We've had good experiences with technical support.

The product is scalable.

The solution could be improved if it offered more documentation or at least provided more information about the products themselves. If there was a virtual assistant of some kind that would help clients familiarize themselves with everything, that would be very helpful.

It would be helpful to get some insights into new features so that we are able to relay information to clients effectively.

I've been using the solution technically since 2019, however, I haven't really been able to focus on it too much. Right now, I am refreshing my knowledge on Sophos XG.

The solution is very stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable overall.

We have clients from various sized companies, and the solution works well with all of them.

There seems to be pretty good scalability potential, at least up to a point.

We've been in touch with technical support and found them to be very accommodating. We are very satisfied with eh level of support they provide to us.

While I may have other colleagues on different solutions, my main focus is Sophos at the moment.

When we're talking about the initial setup for the Sophos XG it can either be simple or complex. It will depend mostly on the infrastructure of the client.

Deployment times also vary, according to the complexity.

Typically, the client handles the maintenance process themselves.

We handle the implementation process for our clients.

We have a platinum partnership with Sophos at this time.

I'm more on the technical side. I don't really have any insights into licensing and pricing as it's not an aspect of the solution I directly deal with on a regular basis.

I'd advise those considering any solution to really take the time to study the product and understand different aspects of it. Every solution is different, and therefore it's important to be able to navigate them. Doing some extra research at the outset will ensure you don't purchase the wrong firewall, which can be a waste of time and money.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're quite happy with the product so far.

We're using the latest version of the solution at this time.

We're integrators and resellers.

It's being used as a UTM, no firewalling. So it acts as a bridge. It doesn't provide the IP services, it doesn't provide DNS, it doesn't provide DHCP services, and it doesn't operate as a router or a point of mapping. It's only being used for filtering: Web and application filtering, as well as antivirus. I usually disable the anti-spam on all those units, because I have a gateway anti-spam server in place.

The web and application filters, as well as the quality of service. It has a very friendly interface like the Cyberoam iNG units, it has customizable policies, it has proper templates that you can even modify, and you can customize the rules, down to each single user.

It gives flexibility in the rules and the filters that you apply, based on, for example, the level of usage and the managerial level, etc. It's highly customizable.

The dashboard is customizable as well. It gives you the feature of including what you need to see as soon as you open the dashboard and to remove the non-necessary stuff, which varies from one organization to the next and from one IT manager to the next. And it has a wide variety of reports as well, template and customizable reports.

The major problem that I am facing, and I know that others are facing as well, is with the HTTPS classic, in general, or any classic that works on Secure Socket Layers. Let's say I set up a rule to block users from accessing YouTube or Facebook. The rule will only block the HTTP traffic, which is non-secure traffic. But most websites right now, most of the reputable web services providers, for extra security for their own web servers and for the user's security, provide a connection over Secure Socket Layer.

The problem comes when you are trying to block, or allow, similar traffic that uses HTTPS. You have to create a certificate and import it into the users' web browsers, whatever they are using. Now, this is not a problem when you're dealing with users stationed and fixed in a specific site or location. They are using desktops, they will never take the desktops and go home with them, nor will they ever take the desktops and travel to another country, or another site with it. The problem occurs when you're dealing with roaming users who use laptops and have to move between different sites that have different types of policies applied to them. You have to import all sorts of certificates from each site into their browser. Doing so will most probably conflict with something else that is totally irrelevant and cause a problem.

A way around this is if you are using authentication with Active Directory. But most of the time, especially if you're operating in a remote site with a very slow internet connection, if it's available in the first place, authentication with Active Directory is impossible. 

So it needs an easier way to apply HTTPS filters, without importing certificates into users' browsers and without the need for using an Active Directory. There must be a way around it. There are workarounds. But with applied workarounds, it will work out once, it won't work out properly 10 other times. That is my only request.

Also, since Sophos took over Cyberoam, the online technical library and support library have become super messy. To get a piece of information is becoming a nightmare. They need to reorganize the online technical support and technical library. The easiest way to overcome this is to look at how the Cyberoam online technical library was structured and to build the Sophos technical library the same way. It is messy, totally unorganized, time-wasting. Instead of getting what you want in five minutes it takes half an hour.

Stability is good. I was so happy with the Cyberoam iNG unit, and I think the Sophos XG series is exactly the same as the Cyberoam iNG unit. It's a very good unit for a smaller or medium business. It's very stable and it takes overload easily, so it can add to the throughput. It has versatility, it will support extra users, it will support extra bandwidth, to a limit, and it keeps on working as a monster. I have barely replaced any of those units through the years.

Scalability is brilliant.

I usually deal with one of the major partners in Egypt. The name is Gateworx. I've been dealing with those guys since my previous company, back to 2002. Even when we're buying devices that will be used in other countries outside of Egypt, we get them from them.

They provide outstanding technical support and they provide outstanding pre-sales services. If I require a device to be delivered to a country outside of Egypt, they contact the partner directly and they set up everything, and I get the hardware delivered. They are outstanding.

This is one of the major reasons we didn't look at another UTM or firewall through the years. These guys were a proper representative of Sophos and Cyberoam.

I've used heaps of them through the years. I've used Fortigate, which is now Fortinet. I've used Websense, they issued something like that years ago. ISS issued something like that years ago.

Sophos UTM, along with Cyberoam UTM, since they are both the same - it's only a different interface and a different hardware look - they provide the best value for the money. You get the best features for the best cost. They are the best, to a certain limit for a certain usage. I never use any of those units as a firewall. What I usually do is, I have an edge firewall responsible for routing, switching, and firewalling. And then I deploy the UTM behind it, only for filtering.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor include getting the best features that you can get for an equivalent cost, so you're paying for what you're getting. You don't want to be paying for the name or the brand or the reputation of it. Also important are pre-sales services and "1000-percent" technical support services, in the environment and the remote areas we operate in, the warranty services as well.

The setup is straightforward. But what could be a straightforward setup for me might be complex for others. It depends on your level of experience, the training that you got, and the engagements.

They have a setup wizard, and I have had heaps of technicians, over the years to set it up, even initially.

I was looking at either Cyberoam iNG or Sophos XG.

My advice would vary based on your requirements. If you have a dedicated edge firewall, like Cisco ASA, you should get Cyberoam iNG and Sophos XG. They will do the job brilliantly. They will take the load, they will do a fantastic job.

If you are looking at units that will do both jobs - being an edge firewall and a UTM at the same time - with routing features, if you are going with Cyberoam and Sophos XG, I'd always recommend that you buy a higher model than what will meet exactly their requirements. So let's say that I'm looking at features that could be fulfilled with an XG 125 or 115, but I want to use the same unit as a firewall. I'd step up and buy an XG 135. You will always need those extra machine resources when you're providing routing, switching, and firewalling as well. Both of those products provide the best support ever, for the money being paid.

I rate it at eight out of 10. It's not higher because of the HTTPS issue that I told you about. That's my major issue. That's a super-disastrous issue that, unfortunately, cannot be solved easily.

And, sometimes we'll get a specific detailed report, stressing a certain aspect and it's not straightforward. I'll be able to do it, but then I'll have to combine or merge more than one, two, or three reports to get the results that I want. So more specific reports would be good. But then, again, there is a work-around by customizing the reports you want and then getting several reports and comparing them together. It's workable. My only issue is trying to save time, administration time is an issue for us.

But other than that, I'm happy. The product is brilliant, support is brilliant.

We use Sophos XG for the firewall.

I like the tunneling part which we are using for the VOIP. We have various other sites where we connect via tunneling. The tunneling part is very fast and easy to implement.

The deployment is very easy for my network team, and it is very easy to implement policies. The support that Sophos provides for the upgrade of new features and their interaction with the customer is very good.

Customer engagement is what I like about the product. We are very well informed about what is going on and new best practices. If anything new has gone wrong or anything in the world of cybersecurity we should know about, they will let us know.

Any firewall is dependent on how you use it. It's also on the user, how you configure it, what you allow, and what you don't allow, and so on. The ease of defining policies and the customer connect is what I appreciate about Sophos.

It would be better if they made their own hardware like Palo Alto and Fortinet. They use their own ASICs and claim it is more secure. 

The SD-WAN can be improved. The traffic optimization somehow needs to be improved, or there is a scope for improvement in Sophos XG.

It would be better if they moved towards the cloud side of things. Now a lot of things are moving on to the cloud.

I have been using Sophos XG for a couple of years.

Sophos XG is a stable product.

Sophos XG is scalable.

The Sophos forum and Sophos direct support are excellent. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Sophos support a ten.

We had Cyberoam, which Sophos took over.

The initial setup is straightforward and took us about a week to deploy.

An internal team made up of two people implemented Sophos XG.

We generally buy it for a three-year license.

I would recommend Sophos XG to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Sophos XG an eight.

Firewall is not our expertise, but we do sell it as per the requirement of the customer or if they ask for it. 

Most of the firewalls are on-prem. What we deliver is the hardware. It is appliance-based.

Sophos firewalls are scalable. They are pretty strong in security. So, when they provide any kind of firewall, they provide all the features such as anti-spam, antivirus, etc.

Its price should be improved. Its features are pretty okay, but the price is the area where we have to fight more. They should do something about the price structure.

It has been a couple of years.

It is stable. Its performance is very good. They have now stopped calling it a firewall. They're calling it a Unified Threat Management (UTM) solution.

It is scalable in the sense that if they are using a small model or a small box of firewall and there is an increase in their network and the number of users, they can move that small box to a bigger model. So, if they are using a firewall and they want to scale it up, they can go to the next model.

Sophos has more than 1,000 customers.

Our clients have a good system of support over here. They have full support. They get support from the distributors, from the partners, and then directly from Sophos.

We are a partner of Sophos and Fortinet. We work with Sophos much more than we work with Fortinet.

If it is a small model and a small network, it takes about two days. You need at least two people for its deployment and maintenance.

Its price should be better. Initially, the clients have to pay for the appliance. Then, they have to pay for the software that is installed on the appliance. Depending on whether they have a one-year, two-year, or three-year license, they just have to renew the license of the software after it expires. They don't have to renew the appliance license. So, they have to pay for the appliance only once, and after that, they just renew the software license. That's all.

I would definitely recommend Sophos to others. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We primarily use it for web content filtering, spam filtering, and VPN.

The setup and the control management are easy enough. For the most part, the features that it offers work well. 

Web filtering is easy enough to deploy, manage, or make exceptions to. 

The logging side of it could definitely be better. Some of the logging lacks, and the information that they provide you, especially in the spam filtering section, could be better.

We're going into our third year.

For what we use it for, it does what we need to do with little to no issue. It is not overly complex for us to be able to deploy what we need.

We're a school. We have 150 staff and 700 to 800 students.

I haven't had any problems with their technical support. Every time we've had to call them, they have been fairly reliant. They have been able to solve the issue or the question that we had.

I've been through a few.

Its setup is easy enough. 

Because we're in education, Sophos gives us a very competitive price for it.

When we first got it, we were on version 17. We have now upgraded to version 18. There was a significant change between versions 17 and 18. Once you get your head around those differences, it is not that complex. Now, version 18 does some stuff that some of my older firewalls used to out of the box. So, that in itself was more of a nicety. It makes things a lot easier. 

I would rate Sophos XG a nine out of 10.

We use Sophos XG for a central firewall, with some branches making a VPN, but that's the normal deployment. Some clients use it as a proxy, but most of my clients use it as a gateway. We use Sophos to configure policies, work filters, application filters, and the SSL VPN and IPSec VPNs.

Because of the pandemic, the VPN is the most valuable feature. In Bolivia, the clients normally asked for an appliance with a web protection license or network protection and web protection license. These are the most common features demanded by our customers.

Some clients are also using the wireless solution and using XG firewall as a wireless controller. For those clients, this feature is a very important.

I used to work with Fortinet, and sometimes I see that the SD-WAN feature could be better because it's much easier in Fortinet. That area could be improved in Sophos XG as it's too complicated right now.

For example, I remember a case where the routers had to be configured by commands. It's not hard, but you have to read and investigate how to do that. The XG firewall works fine, but you have to read, and it takes some time to do it.

Sophos XG could also improve the floating area. I have more features in Fortinet, more visibility of the networking table, and the networking area. But in Sophos, you have to enter the CLA and display it. It'll also help if they offered more toll booths for VPN like Fortinet.

I've been working with Sophos XG for around five years.

I have no issues with the stability. No reboots are needed, and there hasn't been a problem with that.

The new enterprise models are scalable, and we don't have problems. I think it's fine.

I like their technical support. With Cyberoam, I remember the technical support used to work closely with us. They used to configure some features for us and help us resolve problems, but not just by email. They used to work with us and show us how to do it. I think that was nice, but in Sophos, they give us instructions and help us, but by email.

The initial setup and configuration was very easy for us. I think it's easier than the other options in the marketplace. The deployment time is relative. For example, if you're deploying for a client who has another firewall and have to integrate it, it'll take around two or three days. But if it's a new environment, you can deploy the firewall within two hours.

Normally, my clients look at Fortinet. Both have similar features, and sometimes Sophos is more expensive, or FortiGate is more expensive. It depends. But normally, I have clients that migrate from Fortinet to Sophos. They are used to working with FortiGate without a problem, but the main difference in our case is the support. Because as a company, SUPERNOVATEL, has more experience with Sophos to help our clients immediately. That makes the difference.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Sophos XG a nine.