Sophos UTM Reviews

My company deals with eight clients who use Sophos UTM. My company's clients mainly use Sophos UTM for protection against threats and for other purposes like content filtering, web filtering, and VPNs.

The most valuable features of the solution are application filtering and web filtering.

Sophos UTM needs to streamline the VPN configuration. It also needs to fix the concerns related to the solution's Port Address Translation (PAT) rule.

In the future, I want Sophos UTM to provide users with sandboxing features.

The scalability of the product is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required. Sophos should give some flexibility to users, especially when you run low on things like memory and storage.

The support team's turnaround time is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Sophos UTM since 2018. My company has a partnership with Sophos UTM.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

With Sophos UTM, I have noticed that you cannot upgrade the physical devices, meaning you cannot change the memory or the hardware. If you want an upgrade, then you have to go to select the next model or a bigger model offered by Sophos.

One of my company's clients uses the tool in an environment consisting of 20 people, while another client uses the tool in an environment consisting of 20,000 people.

Whenever my company contacts the support team of Sophos, we get really good support.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

I have experience with Fortinet FortiGate, Check Point, and Cisco ASA. My company uses different products depending on the preferences of our customers.

The product's initial setup phase was relatively easy. I rate the product's initial setup phase a six out of ten.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in three days, depending on the size of an organization. If it's a small company, you can finish the deployment process in a day, but if it's a big company with a lot of requirements, it could even take a week to do the full deployment. The product's initial deployment takes a few hours, but the customization to be carried out to suit an organization's structure takes time, and it depends on how big the company is and what customizations the customer wants in terms of modules.

Sophos UTM is a reasonably priced product.

I rate the product's price a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

Sophos UTM is a good tool, especially for SMBs. Sophos UTM has a lot of features that enterprise-sized businesses ask for, but they don't really work very well. For SMBs, the product's features are very good. The setup phase of Sophos UTM can be carried out quickly. In Sophos UTM, it is easy to troubleshoot.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

The primary use case for the solution is as a perimeter protection firewall, which includes functionalities such as VPN, web control, and traffic inspection. It is used in various customer environments, providing comprehensive security management and network protection.

The platform's most valuable features include the integrated multifactor authentication (OTP) for VPNs, which enhances security, and the flexible and intuitive firewall policy settings that simplify management.

Enhancing the user interface to achieve the same level of flexibility as the older UTM interface could improve the product. The current XG interface needs to be more consistent during configuration.

I have been using Sophos UTM for 15 years. 

The solution is stable. I rate it a ten for stability.

The solution is highly scalable, especially with VM offerings, though it can be pricey. I rate scalability as eight or nine.

The customer service and support for Sophos UTM have been exceptional. The developer community is also valuable, offering substantial support and insights.

I previously used solutions like FireGuard and WatchGuard but switched to Sophos for its comprehensive features and superior user interface.

The initial setup for basic functions is very straightforward and can be completed in less than an hour. However, advanced configurations can become challenging.

Our in-house team manages the deployment. We seek help from third-party MSPs with expertise in complex configurations.

The product pricing and licensing are higher, but they offer good value for the features and stability provided.

I evaluated other options including Fortinet FortiGate, but found Sophos to be more suited to our needs at the time due to its ease of use and robust feature set.

The platform requires regular monitoring. Overall, I rate it a ten. 

We have deployed Sophos UTM on cloud and on-premises. The cloud provider is Azure.

There are about 200 people who are using this solution in my organization.

From Cyberoam and the early builds of Sophos SG, they have developed higher integration between Sophos UTM and the computers' endpoint antiviruses. We can isolate the infected machine from the network, but an IT technician or cybersecurity professional can remove it from the machine and disinfect it. 

It has the capability of blocking HTTPS traffic, but you need the Sophos Central Intercept X subscription for that. It gives us the ability to manage our firewalls from the cloud and deploy a unified configuration onto them. Other competitors like Meraki have that ability, but they fail to optimize it in the way that Sophos has.

Last year, Sophos had some major internal management changes that negatively impacted their support. 

I would like to see better reporting and better alerting.

I would rate the stability as nine out of ten.

The scalability is the same as support and the initial setup. The scalability depends on the person who is doing the initial design. If I choose a device that will serve 10 users and my users jump to 50, then I definitely have a big problem. If I choose a firewall that has 30 GBs of throughput, and all of a sudden I jump to 50 GBs throughput, it's my problem because I didn't do the initial design properly. It's not a problem with the device.

If you do a proper design, assume growth, and buy a model or brand that can digest that growth, then it's scalable. Sophos can handle more requests and requirements than what is in the data sheet.

I would rate the scalability as nine out of ten.

I would rate technical support as three out of five.

The level of support might be acceptable for a smaller company. My organization works in mining and drilling, and we operate in 18 countries and five continents. We needed a better response time, especially in regards to cyber security.

I've used multiple other solutions. At one point in time, we were going to replace all of our Sophos units with Meraki, but I canned that completely because they're incomparable. I also compared the Sophos firewall with other virtual firewalls, but that's a bit unfair because that's an on-premises device and the others are virtual. I've used Microsoft Azure Firewall and Sophos Azure Firewall, but I canceled Microsoft Azure Firewall.

We compared Sophos with Cisco Meraki, and we chose Sophos. On the virtual side as a UTM, I compared Sophos XG for Azure with the Microsoft firewall for Azure. Sophos won on the cost side, which I consider to be a minor cost. 

In terms of benefits, features, and ease of configuration, Sophos won.

Compared to other solutions, initial setup is very simple, but it depends on the configuration design that you want. That's where the complexity is.

First, you get the firewall or the router, connect it to the LAN pool, do the initial setup, and then setup the LAN, WAN, and the basic tools. It's the same for FortiGate, IBM ISS, Cisco, Meraki, IronPort, and Websense. Across all those products, the setup is very easy. If there's any problem with initial setup, It has more to do with the lack of experience from the technician setting it up than the complexity of the hardware. 

The only interaction we do with Sophos units is when we are adding new users, removing users, and for other administration tasks. There are two people involved with maintenance, upgrading the firewalls, and testing new scenarios.

My whole team does administration. Comparing Cyberoam to Sophos, the overhead of troubleshooting performance issues is at a minimum. The only time I need to replace a firewall is when it gets burnt out because of a power problem, which is usually something major and doesn't have to do with the product itself.

I would rate the pricing as 2.5 out of 5.

The problem with the Sophos is not the cost of the hardware but the cost of the modules, packages, and the subscription.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

We use Sophos UTM for our organization's network security.

The most valuable feature of Sophos UTM is the endpoint protection feature.

The technical support team’s response time could be improved.

I have been using Sophos UTM since 2018.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

We use the solution daily in our organization.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for scalability.

I previously used Kaspersky. I switched to Sophos UTM because of the features that it is offering.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution’s initial setup ten out of ten.

The solution's deployment took a week for the first time because our organization is big and has over 300 endpoint equipment. It takes a few hours to do the renewals now. We deployed Sophos UTM from the Active Directory. Three people were involved when we deployed the solution for the first time.

You cannot really say that the solution is expensive, given the protection it gives.

Sophos UTM has improved our network's threat detection and response. It has been good so far because we don't have many attacks. We use the solution's web filtering feature for our organization's security. We use the firewall to protect our endpoint equipment and protect against any infiltration in our network. We also use the solution’s VPN feature.

Around one or two people are required for the solution’s maintenance. I would recommend the solution to other users because it has helped us. The solution's installation and deployment are seamless, and its protection is secure.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for firewall security.

The protection on offer is pretty good.

Direct controller management has been quite useful.

It offers reasonable pricing.

The scalability is good.

It is stable. 

Technical support has been fine. 

I don't have any notes for improvements at this time.

I'd like to see some filter features added in the next release. 

There can be a delay when it comes to reaching out to technical support. 

I've been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable. I'd rate it nine out of ten in terms of reliability. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have about 1,000 users on the solution at this time. The solution is very scalable. I'd rate it nine out of ten. 

We use the solution quite extensively. 

Technical support has been fine. They are helpful and responsive. That said, sometimes, there is a delay when we try to reach out to them. 

Positive

It is very simple to set up. I'd rate the ease of implementation nine out of ten. 

I cannot recall how long the original deployment took. 

We did not use any outside assistance. We handled the setup ourselves. 

I'd rate the affordability of the solution seven out of ten. The pricing is decent. 

We're a customer and end-user.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. I do not have the version number on hand. 

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd recommend the solution to others. 

Our company uses the solution as an edge firewall. 

We have 500 users and the solution is managed by five technicians. 

The solution's sandboxing, application center, and database engine are good. 

The endpoint device detection tool integrates very well with Edge devices. 

The reporting system needs to allow for customizations because many reports do not include details that we expect. 

It would be beneficial to have a security fabric feature like FortiGate that integrates with UTM devices and reports to expose issues. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is very easy to scale up and has no limitations. 

Technical support is very knowledgeable and responds immediately to issues.

I rate technical support a ten out of ten. 

Positive

The initial setup is easy and I rate it an eight out of ten.

We implemented the solution in-house and it does not require much maintenance at all. Three technicians handle any maintenance needed. 

The solution's pricing is based on a licensing model and is competitive. 

The solution was 20,000 Rial about five years ago. 

I rate pricing a ten out of ten. 

Per market analysis, the solution is in the top three with FortiGate and Palo Alto. 

All three solutions are comparable so the best fit depends on your engines, environment, and requirements. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

It's easy to use.

I didn't like it much. It suits only small businesses. It isn't scalable and reliable. There is a very critical issue with the power supply.

I've been using this solution for four years.

Its stability is very bad. It needs to be improved. The power supply issue that I faced is a very critical one.

I feel that the hardware itself needs to be improved. We have about 50 users. 

Their support is very bad. They don't respond at all.

It's easy to set up. One day is enough for its full implementation.

We implemented it in-house. We had two administrators for its implementation.

It's expensive. It has a yearly license.

I'd not recommend this solution. I'd rate it a four out of ten.

There are multiple use cases, and a few examples would be its use in the education, banking, or financial sectors. There are so many other locations and sectors where they deploy this solution.

One of the features of Sophos UTM that I find valuable is its user authentication functionality.

In Sophos UTM, there is room for improvement in certain areas. For instance, I believe that its feature known as Synchronized Security could be enhanced. The solution's technical support for India needs to be improved.

I will need to think about the additional features the solution needs to include in its next release.

I have been using Sophos UTM for almost ten years now. It is a good solution. My company is a partner and an integrator of Sophos UTM.

Stability-wise, I rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate this solution a ten out of ten. If I talk about the solution's suitability, then it is suitable for enterprises.

Dealing with technical support can be time-consuming when communicating over the phone. I am unable to provide a rating for the technical support team. My suggestion to others would be that they provide the country location of the toll-free number in the solution. Although a toll-free number has been provided for India, the people in India are good. Compared to the UK, there may be issues with understanding and timing, which could lead to many problems.

We use Sophos Access Point, Sophos Firewall, Sophos Switches, Sophos MDR, and Sophos XDR. We have been using Sophos MDR for three years.

Whether the initial setup is straightforward or complex depends on the number of users or people to whom the solution is given.

Compared to the current market offerings, like FortiGate or SonicWall, Sophos offers its solution at a good price.

I compared Sophos UTM with Fortinet and found that Fortinet's EPP, ATP, and hardware are good. Sophos UTM has also improved its hardware by updating its dual-core processors with a second processor that uses advanced technology, whereas previously, the hardware was handled by a single processor. However, we are still facing some problems with Multicast User Authentication.

I recommend Sophos UTM, Sophos Access Points, Sophos Endpoint, and Sophos Switches to other users. Overall, I rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Our company is a partner and reseller of the solution. We lease, sell, and license boxes for our clients. Use cases are rather unique and not uniform. 

We provide support for a few SMBs around the country. 

Some customers are heavy users, with involved configurations, and the setup may include high availability configured with two boxes. 

Others use it as just a gateway between their infrastructure and the internet with very simple configurations that don't include web filtering. 

Active directory integration domain is used for some, but not all customers. Common items include DNATs and SSL VPN. Most customers use VPNs, and site-to-site connections (REDs or IPsec).

We also use virtualized UTMs for LABs.

The firewall itself is very strong and provides great security for the internet. Some clients don't use any other special feature but all customers depend on the firewall as a secure gateway.

A lot of thinking went into the user experience because the UTM interface is streamlined, good, and feels like a web application. It does have hiccups here and there but effectively treats everything as an object. You can quickly see where objects are being used or referred to and change them. 

The UTMs are end-of-life so the web interface is not top-notch and needs more speed. There is still support for the UTMs so they are the best we have right now. 

The solution needs better captive portals and they could have faster UIs. 

An improvement to the transparent proxy would help. A user should be able to open a webpage and be redirected to the captive portal like with WIFI or XGs. From there, the user should be able to log in with a username and password to gain internet access. Many clients migrate to XG due to this missing feature. 

I have been actively using the solution for a some time.

The stability is pretty good and better than XG. We don't have any issues directly related to the solution.

Stability is rated a ten out of ten. 

The solution scales pretty well. Even with a heavy load, the solution shows no issues. 

Scalability is rated an eight out of ten. 

Technical support is not stellar. We have some good experiences and some not so good experiences. We do not have a lot of support requests for the solution.

Support is rated a seven out of ten. 

Neutral

The setup is straightforward.

We implement the solution for customers. We have a specialist, an architect, and four analysts who handle implementations and maintenance. 

I recommend you complete the solution's training because it is pretty good. Rely on the documentation and any tech training available.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

This solution can be deployed on-premise and on the cloud.

The most valuable feature of Sophos UTM is reporting, it is flexible. I can monitor the end user's devices, even when they are not on my network. It has good drill-down capabilities.

The reporting could improve by providing information on where, or from which device attacks are coming from. We are already given the country where the attack is coming from but more information would be beneficial.

I have been using Sophos UTM for approximately five years.

The stability of Sophos UTM is good.

I rate the stability of Sophos UTM an eight out of ten.

Sophos UTM is scalable.

I rate the scalability of Sophos UTM an eight out of ten.

I have used the support from Sophos UTM a few times. My experience was good. However, the resolution time can improve.

I rate the support of Sophos UTM a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup of Sophos UTM is simple. It can be down within one hour.

I rate the initial setup of Sophos UTM a seven out of ten.

The solution is affordable compared to others, such as FortiGate. The price is important.

I rate the price of Sophos UTM a seven out of ten.

I rate Sophos UTM an eight out of ten.