Sophos Cyberoam UTM Reviews

We use the solution strictly in connection with the files of internal users, such as in a case that they are using the internet and we wish to control their bandwidth or time limit. 

We consider the user level and control features of Sophos Cyberoam UTM to be the best. The user part is one its greatest features. The solution even has its own reporting tool, which is one of the best we have tested. Furthermore, the dashboard is user-friendly. 

The VPN is an area that can be improved. Often, it will fail to connect or become disconnected. Also, the solution is not in the same lane as sending organizations, which have more security features. The enhanced security model is also lacking time-wise. 

Now that the company has shifted from Cyberoam to Sophos, I would not recommend implementing the security-related features of the solution. I have heard from customers that it falls short of the mark. 

In the next release, I would like to see integration with the security features. I wish to see in the actual device the integration of the security feature with another product.

We have been using Sophos Cyberoam UTM for four or five years. 

I have not experienced any downtime with the solution.

We did not expand the solution, limiting its use to five-to-ten percent increments in the number of users, no more. 

We have no plans to increase the usage. 

The solution's technical support offers the best services available. When one of our customer's devices went down, all he needed to do was call tech support and they mailed him the device without requiring any verification or validation whatsoever. 

The initial setup was very simple to apply and integrate.

The licensing is on an annual basis. It is very reasonably priced.

While we did evaluate other solutions prior to going with the product, when it comes to user level controls, I consider Sophos Cyberoam UTM to be the most suitable product.

Our organization has multiple branches and, overall, approximately 200 users are utilizing Sophos Cyberoam UTM devices.

I would rate Sophos Cyberoam UTM as a six out of ten. 

I use the solution as a firewall to protect my network and the two main computers for our website.

The main features I have found best are the load balancer and ease of use.

In my experience the solution can be easier to configure with more documentation, we need more training.

I have been using the solution for a short time.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. We had approximately 500 users using the solution.

I was using Kerio Control before this solution and I liked some of the features but we only used it for a short time.

The solution was easy to install, it was straightforward. It took approximately three hours to configure it. We have one security and network administrators for the maintenance of the solution.

We have used consultants in the past for the implementation.

There is a license for this solution and it is priced competitively. We paid approximately $2,000 for the license.

We stopped using the solution because we needed more training and the documentation needed improvements.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Sophos Cyberoam UTM a seven out of ten.

The solution is used similarly to a traditional firewall.

The solution is easy to use.

I have been using this solution for four years.

The solution in my experience could be more stable.

I have found the solution to be scalable.

The technical support response time could be faster.

The installation of the solution is straightforward. For the maintenance, you only need one person to do it.

I did the implementation of the solution which took approximately one day.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Sophos Cyberoam UTM an eight out of ten.

I am using it as a firewall for getting the internet for our users. I am using CR100i, which is an old model. I am going to replace this one.

Its portal is user-friendly. I am able to manage the user data and access control through this device.

It should have better VPN protection. Some of the VPN applications are not blocked by this firewall. Some VPNs are able to get through this firewall, which is why I am planning to replace this firewall with a good one in the near future.

I have been using this solution for the last five years.

It is stable.

It is easy to scale. There are no problems or issues with it. 

We have two administrators and 200 users. Out of these, 70 users are contract users.

We didn't face any issues with it so far.

I have used Cisco ASA, which is a different product. This is a UTM device, whereas Cisco ASA is purely a firewall. Some of the features that are available in this solution, such as user activities, user values management, and user time active, are not there in Cisco ASA. 

Its initial setup is simple.

The first installation was done by the integrator. In terms of maintenance, at one time, there was a problem with the hardware of the device, and a memory part wasn't configured. They had replaced this memory. That was the only issue we had.

It is a cheap firewall. We are not paying for any license.

I would recommend this solution. It is a good solution for an entry-level firewall. It is not suitable for large data center networks.

I would rate Sophos Cyberoam UTM a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for its firewall capabilities. We use it to make a firewall for the network and the two main computers as well as our web pages. 

The solution works really well overall.

It's quite easy to configure everything, which is a great selling point for us. You can easily adjust the users and load balances, for example. We can make our own rules and input as many as we like. 

The firewall is very good. It provides a nice amount of security.

The solution has good load balancers.

We've found the solution to be very stable.

So far, we've found the scalability to be acceptable.

The installation process is pretty easy.

A user needs to do some training on the solution in order to take full advantage of the product.

There needs to be more documentation that users can access to help them understand the solution or troubleshoot as necessary. Right now, this is lacking quite a bit.

Beyond that, there aren't really any missing features that I can recall. I can't speak to what I would like to see in a future release.

The stability of the solution is quite good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and offers us a good performance. 

The product is quite scalable. If a company needs to scale it up, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have at least 500 users on the product currently.

I don't have any experience with technical support. I have never used them and therefore can't speak to how responsive or knowledgeable they might be.

We used to use Kerio Control. I actually liked using it, however, we only had it for about eight or nine months before moving off of it. That said, I didn't have the skills to manage the solution properly.

We have found the initial installation process to be straightforward and easy. It's not overly complex or difficult. A company should be able to manage it rather easily.

If you connect it then you can adjust the web page and the IP and you can make a batch configuration. Then you can simply connect to the tower. It's not hard.

The deployment maybe took three or so hours. It wasn't a long amount of time. That includes handling all of the configurations as well.

We have five members that make up a technical team that can handle deployment and maintenance. Two are administrators. One is a security admin and the other is a network admin. Those are the two that mostly manage everything and have the rights to do so.

At the time, we used a consultant to assist us in the process. They were quite knowledgeable and helped a lot.

We pay for licensing the solution. It's my understanding that it is not overly expensive. It may be somewhere around $2,000 for a license. 

I'm not sure of which version of the solution we're using.

I'd recommend the solution.

I would rate it at least a seven out of ten. It's a pretty good solution and we're mostly happy with it.

We primarily use the solution for operating system security.

The geofencing and report blocking are the solution's most valuable aspects.

The solution is quite stable. The performance has been good overall.

The product is at its end-of-life. There is nothing to improve as it will be discontinued.

With technology such a Sophos, Palo Alto, and Fortinet there has always been a lot of online documentation, which Cyberoam always lacked.

We started using the solution in 2016 or 2017. It's been a few years.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good overall. We find it reliable.

I haven't worked on scaling the solution, and therefore can't speak from personal experience on how well it would expand or how easy it would be. Our company is not in the process of expanding it out, either.

We have about 100 user on the solution currently.

The technical support was always good, however, it was never as good as the technical support offered by Sophos. They could have been more helpful and responsive. They could have been better at sharing information. However, it doesn't matter anymore, as we are moving on to Sophos.

We are now moving over to Sophos, as this solution is obsolete.

The initial setup is not complex. It's quite straightforward. A company wouldn't typically have any issues rolling it out.

I cannot recall how long our deployment took, exactly. It's been a few years since the process happened.

We did not require assistance from outside contractors when we did our initial implementation. We handled it in-house. We did not hire consultants or integrators.

The solution wasn't overly expensive. If you are covering your company from security risk, it's often worth the cost. Security solutions aren't something you want to cheap out on.

We're typically using the latest version of the solution. We update our policies every three years and continue to update them. 

The product is obsolete and we have moved over to Sophos.

Generally, I would tend to recommend Sophos XE to users.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to serve as a captive portal for staff to authenticate before they gain access to the network.

The most valuable features are the firewall section, the VPN, and how you control live users. 

The interface is good.

So far, I have not encountered any problems.

I am not happy with my last pricing experience. The pricing could be better.

I would like to see real-time alerts on traffic insights.

I have been using Sophos Cyberoam UTM for three years.

It's a stable product. We have not experienced any crashes or bugs.

I haven't tried to scale it yet.

I have contacted technical support once and the experience was seamless. They walked me through the right rules to create. Everything went well.

The initial setup was a bit complex. Over time, I grew and I could navigate around everywhere. It's pretty easy to find what you are looking for.

The implementation only takes a couple of hours to complete.

We used an agent to help us with the implementation.

We do all of the maintenance in-house. 

For any solution that has to pass through Sophos, we do the firewall configuration ourselves.

I am not happy with the pricing, it could be better.

We did not evaluate other solutions because we knew that we wanted to use this one.

This is a product that I could recommend to others if they had a direct contact with Sophos.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are using this product to protect our networks, by blocking some websites and applications such as YouTube or WhatsApp.

The most valuable feature is the protection that it provides.

It's coming to the end of its life. I would like to change to another solution.

Technical support could be faster.

I have been using Cyberoam for five years.

It's stable and we have not had any issues.

We have thousands of users in our organization.

Technical support is fine, but they could be faster.

Previously, I was using the Cisco ASA.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was not complex.

It took 10 to 20 minutes to install it.

We don't require a lot of people to maintain and deploy this solution.

I did not use an integrator or reseller. I worked with someone else.

It's not an expensive product.

This is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.