If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Sophos XG, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
If you pay for the premium support, you'll get better support from Sophos. I would rate Sophos XG an eight out of ten. The integration with their Sophos Central isn't great. That needs some work. If they could work on the integration with Sophos Central, that would be great.
We use the on-premises deployment model. I would rate the solution nine out of ten. It's a very good firewall. It helps a lot with protection, and every organization needs a firewall to ensure they are protected.
We are a Sophos partner. We both use the solution and recommend it to clients. Compared to other competitors, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. However, for very large enterprises, the largest firewall appliance from Sophos might not be enough for thousands of users. If I was rating the solution for enterprises, I would rate it eight out of ten because of this. I would recommend the solution, however. We often recommend the solution to our clients and it works very well for them.
Once you have basic networking skills and firewall management it's easy to set up. With Sophos Central, I think it's a good solution for any IT department. I would rate the solution eight out of ten. As it is now, the solution is good, but I believe that there's still room for more improvement. I still believe the reporting could be improved. Sophos, from my experience, seems to affect my bandwidth. I didn't set any limit, so I don't know where that is coming from, but it's something that we've noticed with the XG.
It is a good product and I will definitely recommend it. I rate this product a seven out of ten. In the next version I would like to see an advanced level and not only a basic level. Nowadays it is a very useful feature to be able to upgrade.
We use a variety of deployment models, including public cloud, private cloud, and on-premises. For what we are using the solution for, its practically perfect. We don't need other features added. The solution offers exactly what we need. I would rate the solution seven out of ten.
We are using the on-premises deployment model. The solution is easy to implement, however, if you do decide on this solution, I would make sure that you have someone that has experience with this kind of solution or to hire someone to implement the solution properly. It will make everything much easier in the long run. I would rate the solution 9.5 out of ten.
We use the on-premises deployment model. We definitely plan to increase the usage and also add high variability too. Right now, it is the main internet gateway and firewall for my network. We're using both Sophos XG and Sophos UTM. I would warn those considering implementation that, once you've got it, you're stuck with it. You can't really increase the capacity very much beyond what you have. It's always good to have the expertise available to take care of the box because even though it's a lot easier than the Cisco ASA, you still need someone that has a little expertise in managing it. You can get very good performance without spending all of your money and without having to send a lot of high-end techs in-house to monitor processes. I would rate the solution nine out of ten.
I recommend that everyone should have a proper understanding of new network requirements and then enjoy it. Sophos XG is definitely a good product. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give Sophos XG an eight.
Because of the problems that we are having, I cannot recommend this solution to anyone at this time. I would rate this solution five out of ten.
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.