Sophos Firewall Reviews

I use the solution as my endpoint firewall and at the same time, I use it for load balancing and spillover.

What I like the most is the reporting. 

The integration with the Sophos firewall is brilliant. I don't need to be physically present in the office. I can monitor everything from Sophos Central. That is a great feature and it's one thing that I really appreciate about the solution.

I like the fact that it can self remove malware and do updates on the cloud via Sophos Central.

The interface is good.

Although I enjoy the reporting elements of the solution, it can still be improved. I still can't drill down. There is some information that I would really, really like to see, but I still can't access it.

On reports, they sometimes give a summary, but it lists different users as unknown. There are times that I really want to know which user or which IP is causing a problem. 

There is something that have observed and I don't know what exactly the problem is. Right now, from my ISP I'm supposed to have unlimited bandwidth, but I observed behind the firewall my bandwidth seems low. I'm not exhausting what I have from my ISP. I've checked the TOS and there's no limit. When I spoke with one of the resellers they said that they too had experienced it before and that probably I should restart the device.

That they observed that the clients that restarted had their internet service improve. I don't think that is a good solution. I don't want to have to restart my device to have the internet service improved.

I've checked the setup. I even checked with the reseller, who told me everything is okay. I've gone for XG training. Even after the XG training, I've gone back to look at my setup. I can't see anywhere the bandwidth is being shared. I'm not sure if it's the device itself, but I've checked everything.

The scalability is okay. We have about 200-250 users.

Technical support can be improved upon. There are times that I've had some issues that I've tried escalating in technical support and it takes a while before we really get it resolved. 

Once I was getting a particular malware from an unknown source on one of my servers which was behind the firewall. I asked their support why. Later they advised that I should install Intercept X for servers on that particular device. I was confused about how it was behind a firewall; the firewall should be able to detect which system is getting infected. The system doesn't really go to the internet and nobody browses on it. The only thing I could imagine that could cause it was a Windows update. If it was from an update they least it should have been able to say, "Okay, it was from this particular update that this malware was filtered in."

Out of ten, I would give their service a five.

The solution we were using previously was Cyberoam.

The Cyberoam device was about five years old and had started malfunctioning. It wasn't giving us the output it had previously provided. At that time, Sophos had already bought Cyberoam. We had the option to either upgrade the OS to a Sophos OS or to a Sophos device.

We decided to go for a Sophos device since the Cyberoam device was already problematic.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I used a reseller to assist with implementation.

We pay on a yearly basis. 

We have Sophos XG, but we also have Intercept X for our endpoint and recently we just deployed Intercept X for the servers. I've not done a calculation of the costs of all three to know what my yearly maintenance costs would be.

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.

We use the solution as an internet firewall, and a VPN concentrator.

It streamlines the process of creating VPN access for users. Because of the AD integration, it makes it very easy to manage these users from different locations from a central source. It also helps us to get a good idea of what our risks are, or if there's any risky activity going on with the users. 

The SSL VPNs are the most valuable feature for me. I have a lot of systems out of the head office that need to connect to the local networks, and they all connect via the Sophos VPN client.

The initial set up process can be a little tricky, especially when you are registering with Sophos and you have a poor internet connection. Setup is not necessarily complex, but it's not trouble-free. You do have connectivity issues at the initial setup with registering the device on the Sophos platform to access the advanced features. It doesn't always go through the first time around. That may be an issue with the quality of our connection. I'm not sure exactly what it is. 

The single sign-on client I get maybe a 60% success rate on. There are times when it will use single sign-on for verification of users to access Internet resources. It still doesn't always catch the user. The user gets sent to the web login. Even though the single sign-on is helping, it doesn't always work. 

I would like to see a better single sign-on performance. I'd like to see a more streamlined way of managing your licensing as well.

There are no issues with stability. It's a very stable system and you almost never have serious problems for any reason. It's only when you do an upgrade that you have to restart. Stability-wise, for the on-premise solution, I'd give it 4 stars.

Once you've bought the specific version, you are locked into the limitations of that plan. You can't exceed the number of VPNs, connections, etc. There's no way to increase that capacity, per se. You do have options where you can increase the port count and so on. However, in terms of scalability, you have to buy the capacity you require.

On the system I have now, it's not fully populated, but we have about 100 users. The plan is to eventually support about 1,400 users.

I don't use the solution's technical support. I typically just use the documentation. There are lots of guides and videos available. In most cases, I search the guide. There's a step-by-step guide to deploy so I don't have to contact technical support.

The initial setup isn't hard, but it can be tricky. Since I've been using several Sophos devices, I now find it's fairly simple. I get the deployment done in two hours, including integration. For others, it may take about a day to get everything done. 

There's almost no maintenance. There's really only the requirements of adding users and populating VPN connections. One person does that on a part-time basis.

I handled the implementation myself.

We do see an ROI. It would be the cost of the support. If I had to hire a CCNP in Nigeria, I would be paying about $10,000 per annum for a CCNP minimum. For a less experienced person, I can get for about $6,000. I am probably saving about $4,000 a year in personnel costs from going with the XG rather than the ASA.

We are paying about $1,500 yearly for the Enterprise Plus. As far as I know, there aren't costs above this standard fee.

We evaluated Cisco ASA as well as the FortiGate before ultimately choosing Sophos.

I chose Sophos over FortiGate because I'd already had experience with Cyberoam and it was a fairly similar migration in terms of configuration from the UTM over. But in terms of features and capabilities, I think FortiGate is pretty similar to the Sophos. Cisco ASA I choose not to go with because it's much harder to configure. I also needed to be able to have someone other than myself manage it and not need to have someone with CCNP sitting down just to add VPN users etc. I felt that the Sophos solution was a better option because it gave me all the functionality of the ASA, but it's much easier to manage.

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.

We use Sophos XGS primarily for VPN and security with clients and supplies.

Sophos XGS has some rules and intelligence to scan all vulnerabilities in our network.

The most effective feature in enhancing our network security is the threat intelligence capability.

The technical support could be improved as it is currently not competent and pretty slow.

I have been working with Sophos XGS for three years.

The technical support is rated three out of ten, indicating it needs significant improvement.

Negative

The pricing of Sophos XGS is okay. It is approximately two thousand and a half per year.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to control the network and for web browsing. It provides threat protection.

It increases productivity in our company. Everything is protected.

Deployment could be easier.

I have been using Sophos XGS for three years.

I have the company we bought from Cisco, which provides technical support. If anything goes wrong, we call them for any help and support.

Positive

With Cisco, You have to buy everything separately and request many options. It's preferable to get a full bundle like Sophos offers. Sophos includes everything in one package, and any additional features are less expensive than Cisco.

It is 20% more expensive than Sophos.

The initial setup is difficult. You need to take a course to learn how to deploy Sophos. With training and hands-on experience, it’s manageable now, but setting up Sophos for the first time was time-consuming. Deploying the security and configuring the network took a lot of effort initially, but the process becomes much easier once that's done.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Sophos XGS mostly for website blocking, application blocking, and site-to-site VPN.

Compared to other products, Sophos XGS is a user-friendly solution.

It would be useful if Sophos XGS included DDNS-based features.

I have been using Sophos XGS for four years.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Sophos XGS is a scalable solution. We have more than 50 users in our organization.

Sophos XGS provides good technical support. The support team has good knowledge of troubleshooting and fixing our issues.

The solution’s initial setup is complex.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. The solution’s deployment takes half an hour to one hour.

Sophos XGS is a cost-effective solution.

I would recommend Sophos XGS to other users because it is more cost-effective than other products.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Users have distributed networks. They use it as an SD-WAN to connect the branch’s site or multiple locations. We are using RED channels or devices for branch-to-branch connectivity.

You don't need an additional subscription for IPS or an antivirus. It has an engine of antivirus applications for IPS. You have an email gateway for people who are still using on-prem exchange. Comparatively, other firewalls might need multiple subscriptions separately for each feature.

Sophos might discontinue the UTM features, as they've been promoting the newer XGS Series appliances. While the XGS offers great features like detailed logging and audit reports, it currently lacks essential functions in the UTM. For example, the XGS doesn't provide basic audit tracking for configuration changes, which is crucial for understanding who made modifications, what was changed, and when. Sophos claims they'll add this functionality later. Its absence significantly hinders the usability of the new firewall.

Additionally, while XGS offers decent day-to-day management, there's room for improvement. Many users transitioning from UTM find the XGS interface less intuitive, causing a learning curve.

I have been using Sophos XGS as a reseller for a long time. We are working with the latest version of the solution.

The newer version is stable. Earlier versions, like V8, were quite unstable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight-point five out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is good. We cater the solution to small, medium, and enterprises.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

Support is mostly good, but sometimes it takes too long to escalate the solution.

Neutral

The initial setup is very easy. It depends based on the scale of the deployment. There are different use cases according to the customers. Based on the requirements, the deployment can take between one day to a month. We have a small customer with a few hundred users. We can configure that within two to three days and finish the deployment quickly. It requires meticulous planning, and doing it then takes time based on the size of the customer , especially if it's a big customer. A small deployment is very easy. Larger deployments take time based on the customer requirements and different timescopes of the customer and downtime.

Sophos is comparatively cheaper than other products. The total cost of ownership is better in Sophos.

I rate the product’s pricing a five out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight-point five out of ten.

We used it to create rules to monitor our network environment properly, using the standard.

It's great because we can create and manage firewall rules, add policies to those rules, and generate detailed reports. It has helped us protect our network and meet compliance requirements.

The policies are the greatest feature. They allow us to configure granular control over our network traffic.

The speed of report generation could be improved.

I have been using it for one year. I used version 16.5, and I also used version 17 of the product.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate it highly for scalability. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

I had a little bit of experience with another firewall solution, but not much.  

It is easy to deploy and manage.

The pricing is okay. 

I would recommend go ahead and use it. It's a great product. I have this product in my house as well. 

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

We use the solution to secure networks and traffic for our customers.

The solution is easy to use and provides regular updates. Along with this, it is network friendly as well. Thus, we can easily control and monitor the devices.

The solution's pricing and stability could be better.

We have been using the solution for three years.

It is a stable solution. I rate its stability a seven or eight. Sometimes, we encounter stability issues.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability an eight or nine. Our clients for the solution are enterprise businesses.

The solution's technical support is good.

Positive

The solution is easy to install. It takes a day or two to complete depending on the use cases. We require one technician for its deployment. Also, its maintenance process involves adding connections, managing them, and checking the errors.

We have the solution's annual license. Its price is moderate, but it could be cheaper. Also, there are additional costs involved as it requires appointing IT experts.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it as seven out of ten.

The primary use case is for recommending it to my customers who are using it right now.

The feature that I find most valuable is the synchronized security option where the endpoint talks to the firewall.

Level one technical support is not good at all and needs to be improved.

I have been using Sophos XGS for the past six years or more. 

The stability is very good for Sophos XGS.

Sophos XGS is scalable. I am currently working with anywhere between five to forty users.

I was working with Fortinet before switching to Sophos XGS.

The initial setup is straightforward. The basics are easy, but it is all the extra features that take a long time to deploy.

The pricing for Sophos XGS is reasonable.

I would rate Sophos XGS an eight out of ten.

Sophos XGS's best features are its VPN and ATPR1 cert protection. It's also very user-friendly and makes managing roles and policies very easy.

There are some issues with conversion and user roles when upgrading to Cyberoam.

I've been using Sophos XGS for two years.

Sophos XGS is stable.

Sophos XGS is scalable.

Sophos's technical support is excellent.

I previously used Cyberoam, but Sophos XGS's licensing is easier.

Sophos XGS's pricing is very affordable.

I would give Sophos XGS a rating of ten out of ten.