Sophos Firewall Reviews

We manage other companies' IT infrastructure and some of them use this network solution.

The most valuable feature I have found to be the reporting function.

Some of the firewall rules are complicated for us to understand, they should be simplified.

I have been using this solution for approximately five years.

We have used many different versions. In some of the older versions, the refreshing time took approximately 20 min which is too long, and in other versions, we experienced other stability issues.

The solution is scalable. We have approximately 25 clients using this solution.

The technical support was very good before. However, now it is very difficult for us to reach them. There are crucial times when we need to speak to support but they take up to three hours to resolve or to address the issue. Sometimes it takes them 45 minutes to answer the call. When you are with a client you cannot wait this long. 

The technical support needs to improve their response time in answering the calls and finding a solution.

The installation is easy. However, configuring the permissions or rules in the new version is difficult and in the older version, it was simple.

The price of the solution is reasonable when comparing it to other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Sophos XG a seven out of ten.

Overall the solution works well.

The reporting could be improved in this solution by adding more details.

I have been using this solution for approximately five years.

There used to be problems with the stability of the solution a few years ago but now the solution is stable and reliable.

We have approximately 400 users using this solution in my company and we plan to increase usage in the future.

The technical support has been good.

The initial installation is straightforward.

The solution is priced well.

I am satisfied with the solution.

I rate Sophos XG a seven out of ten.

Most of the clients use it for web filtering, application control, SSL inspection, and VPN. We have on-premise and cloud or virtual environment deployments. On the cloud, Sophos XG is on Azure or OVH.

The most valuable is the synchronized security between Sophos XG and Sophos endpoint because it provides a lot of visibility about unknown applications. The endpoint shares the information of unknown applications, and you can learn about those applications and create policies to allow or block those applications.

Everything is working as expected at this moment, but the anti-spam solution in Sophos XG needs to be improved. It needs more granular features and more stability. The anti-spam solution currently doesn't have many features, and we would like to have more features. At this moment, there is no expression filter for anti-spam. We need something to be able to filter subjects or attachments in emails based on the keyword. Sometimes, there is an issue with anti-spam, and Sophos XG suddenly stops processing incoming or outgoing emails. The only solution for this issue is to restart the appliance.

Their support should be improved. It takes a long time to escalate a support case from level one to level two.

I have been using Sophos XG for six years.

It is stable, but sometimes, there is an issue with anti-spam, and Sophos XG suddenly stops processing incoming or outgoing emails. This is the only issue that I have with the anti-spam solution on Sophos XG.

It is scalable. Most of our clients are small enterprises. We also have some medium enterprises.

Their support should be improved. When we open a support case on their support portal, it first goes to their tier-one support. When an issue is complex, it takes a long time to escalate a support case to a level-two engineer, which is frustrating. Their response time is slow.

Its deployment and setup are very easy. It is not at all complex to set up. The deployment duration varies. It can take around three days for a deployment with anti-spam, application control, IPS, and VPN with filtering.

For its deployment and maintenance, usually, there are two of us, but sometimes, there is just one person.

Most of the customers here evaluate FortiGate against Sophos XG. Some of them also evaluate WatchGuard Firebox. In the past, FortiGate had the advantage of having an SD-WAN solution, but now Sophos also has an SD-WAN solution with a graphical user interface.

Sophos XG is very easy to follow and easy to configure, which is something very valuable for me and our customers. It is also very easy to use a site-to-site VPN with certificates, which is another pro. SD-RED devices are one more advantage that Sophos has over other vendors. These devices are very useful for those customers who don't have IT personnel in branch offices. With SD-RED devices, they can connect to the central site. The connection is automatically established with Sophos XG on the site. There is no need to have an IT person on the site.

I would recommend this solution because it is really easy to implement. Sophos XG is very focused on cybersecurity. Its ability to synchronize information with Sophos endpoint is a very good feature when you are concerned about security. Other vendors or firewalls are more focused on establishing the connection and policies.

I would rate Sophos XG an eight out of ten. It is very good, but it could be better.

It is a firewall. It is used in my defense line. It provides defense and a form of security for my internal network.

IPS and advanced threat protection (ATP) are the most valuable features. I am able to segment my network traffic and block incoming connections. It is also easy to use.

I would like to have better SSL decryption and HTTPS decryption. There should be filtering of SSL and HTTPS traffic.

Sophos XG consumes a lot of endpoint resources. It consumes a lot of RAM and CPU resources, and they should look into this.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable.

Its scalability is fine. We have about 40 users. We don't have any plan to increase its usage at the moment. However, it depends on recruitments and other things. If required, my company would change my box to a bigger one for better processing speed.

Their technical support is okay. Sometimes, during the webinars, when I have some questions, they respond to them, but sometimes, I don't get any response.

I have worked with Check Point before. Check Point is very expensive. At this time, we are not thinking of switching to another solution. If we were switching, Cisco Firepower would have been an option, but my colleagues, who have good experience with such solutions, would prefer to stay with Sophos XG. Cisco Firepower is a little bit complicated to use. It is also expensive. Cisco and Check Point have different boxes for different things, whereas Sophos brings everything into one box.

It was straightforward.

Its price is fair. It is cheaper and way better than others.

I like this solution. I would rate Sophos XG an eight out of ten.

We use this solution as our main firewall. We also use it for email security purposes. Within our organization, there are roughly eight employees using this solution. 

The user interface is very good. As we've been using Sophos for four years now, we're very comfortable with the GUI interface. In addition, the IPS is quite good. 

We recently updated our previous version; now, the security licensing fee is quite high. I don't know if it's a bug in the OS, but it's not been very stable after we upgraded to the latest version.

we have been using Sophos for XG for four years. 

Sophos is quite stable.

It's not that scalable but it's good enough for us. 

We are not very happy with the customer support they provide — it's quite slow.

A year ago, we contacted technical support regarding the high security licensing fees but they still haven't gotten back to us; they're still analyzing the log.

Support-wise, I would only give Sophos a rating of three to four out of ten. 

For us, the installation was very straightforward. We deal with a local vendor and they guide us through the installation process. We haven't experienced any issues setting up this solution. 

The price of Sophos is reasonable. It's not too expensive — I think it's worth it. Price-wise, I'd give Sophos a rating of eight out of ten.

Before Sophos, we were using Fortinet. Fortinet was also a good solution but Sophos was equipped with more features that we needed. 

Feature-wise, I would give Sophos a rating of seven out of ten.

They need to improve their support, overall customer care, and lower the security licensing fees. If they improved these issues, I would give them a higher rating.

 Before upgrading any Sophos firmware, be sure to contact the Sophos team and upgrade it according to their advice. Without their advice, I wouldn't recommend performing an upgrade.

We are using a basic model for its security features. We are in the hospitality industry and it has all of the features that we need.

The interface is user-friendly and the product is easy to configure.

Support for this product is something that is really important, and it needs to improve.

I have been using Sophos XG for almost eight years.

This solution has been stable so far.

This is a scalable product and we have about 45 people using it.

Only one person is required for maintenance.

Before the current pandemic, technical support was good, but it is becoming worse.

In the past, I have worked with SonicWall and Fortinet products.

I prefer Sophos because of the user-friendly configuration and stability.

The initial setup is easy.

This is a budget-friendly product with reasonable pricing.

In summary, this is a good product and other than the support, I don't think that there is anything else that will improve it for us.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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 am a reseller.

It is feature-rich, I like the server authentication, and the reports are good.

The recent changes of the policy compared to Cyberoam are a little bit less user-friendly and complicated. Cyberoam is much easier to use.

Security could be better.

In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to the policy and simplify the policy-making, as the complexity of it makes it really tough.

I have been working with Sophos XG for more than six years.

It's a stable product.

It's more scalable than most, but like other products, a Sandbox cannot be scalable.

Our clients are small and medium-sized companies.

We get a local-level team for support. There is less support with Cyberoam.

Cyberoam is the first product I started selling. We sell Fortinet also. Customers prefer Fortinet.

There is not a lot of difference between Sophos and Fortinet, they are very similar but in a large environment, Fortinet is better.

The initial setup is really not a problem, but the policy-making is a bit complex.

The price is not reasonable. The price is a bit higher.

Cyberoam is better in terms of cost.

I always recommend Sophos but there is a Enterprise security concern so I prefer Palo Alto.

I would rate Sophos XG an eight out of ten.