Sophos UTM Reviews

We use Sophos UTM as an on-premise firewall.

All of Sophos UTM's features are valuable. The intrusion prevention is great, and I like dual virus scanning on the network layer because we scan it through Avira and Sophos. Web filtering is also a fantastic option for clients who want to really lock down internet access. And of course, it has the basic firewall features like port blocking and all of the stuff that most standard firewalls include.

I've been using Sophos UTM for over 12 years. I started using the solution before it became Sophos. It was originally called the Astaro Security Gateway, and then Sophos acquired Astaro and renamed it Sophos UTM.

Very stable. Very good.

I have Sophos UTM deployed for all my IT clients. There are 40 of them in the field serving about 500 users total.

We get put on hold for a long time. Otherwise, I'm not unhappy with their support at all. 

If you have a networking background and understand how to configure it, it's very straightforward. Somebody off the street can't just come in and do it, but yeah, it's pretty straightforward.

I would rate Sophos UTM a strong eight. I'm not giving it a ten because they're putting all their efforts into the XG model, so the UTM model will probably be phased out before long. I love the security of the XG. It's better with artificial intelligence and all of this type of stuff, and you can manage it from the Sophos Central Cloud. But Astaro ASG, now Sophos UTM, was the first unified threat management system and everybody else was copycatted it. I think its web filtering's great. If there are any security vulnerabilities, it's the fault of the administrator configuring the product, not the solution itself. You can lock networks down tight with this if you know what you're doing.

I'm IT head at our company in India and we are customers of Sophos UTM.

The solution has many good features. There was a steep learning curve moving to version 18 but we're now at a point where the solution is more efficient and effective. When talking about VLANs the solution makes it easy to separate rules for everything. The solution is easy to use with simple implementation.  

The application server needs to be improved because currently, the classification segregation of applications needs to be more defined. Also, we used to be able to open the firewall using LAN IPS but that's no longer possible and needs to be solved. I'd like to see an improvement in central categorizing. These days with all the applications and threats, getting everything filtered down needs to be a finer, more granular process. There are times when you find that a website seems to be legit, but there is a code running behind it that can act as a proxy or some kind of a bot. The sites are always logged on, but at times we have to open for a few clients or a few sites and in that time they're open to attack.

We've been using this solution for at least six years. 

This solution is absolutely stable. 

The solution is scalable; we jumped from 135 to 230 users without any problems at all. 

Technical support used to be good but it's lagging a bit now. Support staff was better trained and more efficient than they are now. It could be because of Covid but it's a bit of a challenge at the moment. 

We worked with SonicWall many years ago. We then switched to Cyberoam and then we primarily used Cisco Firepower. There were support issues with Cisco and it wasn't easy to find the KB articles and training was lacking. Even the training personnel had problems when we had issues with implementation. The same thing happened when we used Palo Alto with the support being the biggest problem. It was so unstructured and I hope that has changed in the last 12 months. When it comes to firewalls we are happy with two products; Fortinet is our preference but when you take cost into account, we prefer Sophos. 

The initial setup was relatively straightforward. 

The licensing costs for Sophos are reasonable. It's clear to me that there are no full solutions, you can't win it all, and the cost is always an issue. We're on the winning side with Sophos in that respect. We renew our license every three years. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for a number of use cases, including the firewall, web filtering, email filtering, and email encryption. UTM does it all. The only thing that we don't use it for is web application and protection. We don't really have any web servers in-house.

The web and email filtering are the two biggest and most valuable aspects of the solution for us.  

The solution overall has just been a good, cost-effective solution for us.

The solution offers a lot of functionality.

The solution scales well.

We've found the technical support to be helpful.

The stability and performance are quite good.

The ease of use could be a bit better. It's something they could work on.

The ease of configuration could be improved. It's not as simple as it could be just yet. However, it's kind of the nature of it.

They're kind of difficult to get set up sometimes.

Some of the detail in the web filter and the email filtering could be better outlined in the reporting. It is not as good as the two separate standalone solutions we used previously. However, it does also gives us a lot of other stuff that those two solutions didn't. It's a trade-off.

I've been using the solution for the last five years at this point.

The stability and performance are good. The solution is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

We've been using the same hardware for five years and it's always had a very good performance. I would say it scales pretty well. We have around 80 users on the solution currently. We've had double that. Actually, until COVID hit, we did have double that, as of a year ago.

We've been very happy with Sophos, despite the fact that most of their support is based out of Europe. When you get them on the phone, they're actually very good. Their support is very good. We've been happy with them, and have no concerns about renewing the maintenance.

We currently use a few Cusco solutions. We had a SurfControl web filter previously - a standalone server for that. We also had an email filtering package, that was on a separate server by itself. We found that the Sophos UTM did both of those things, and it gave us a firewall, and it saved us money. That's largely why we switched. The downside to Sophos is the reporting wasn't as good, however, everything else was better.

There was nothing wrong with the other solutions that we had other than it would cost us twice as much money to get a lot fewer capabilities. We don't really have the manpower to fully utilize those other solutions in great detail, which is why a simple web filter and email filter that was built into the Sophos solution worked for us. Plus, it does a lot more than that. We could run everything through it. We could - and we may do this - move away from using the Cisco solutions altogether, and just use the two Sophos firewalls. Once we get the XG up and running, we can upgrade the UTM to XG also and have the two XG firewalls in our two locations, and use it for the LAN connection between the locations. I don't know that we'll do that, however, it's definitely something that we can do. It's just a lot of additional capability and flexibility. 

While the configuration can sometimes be tricky, it was pretty much straightforward to initially set everything up. It helped that we had paid support through Sophos, so their technicians helped us get it up and running.

The deployment took a couple of weeks in total. It wasn't too big of a deal.

We don't really have any staff dedicated to deployment and maintenance. I tend to handle those aspects myself.

I've watched a few webinars, even on implementation, and it's just that a lot of the stuff is really different. You need to work on it a bit to get the hang of everything.

We had Sophos directly assist us. They were great at helping us implement everything. We physically got it in place, and then got it up and running, and then finished it off with some assistance from Sophos.

We've found the solution to be cost-effective overall.

Normally we do a three-year license with maintenance on a firewall.

Beyond the standard maintenance fee, the solution doesn't require any other licensing costs.

We are a manufacturing company. We're not a technology company. We don't need to have the very latest state-of-the-art technology, however, we want to try to be close to it. For us, Sophos is perfect.

We also plan to use Sophos XG, however, we haven't implemented it yet. We're hoping it might be easier to configure and set up than UTM.

Our antivirus, actually, was the antivirus that was managed by the UTM. Now they've since retired that capability, and they've gone to endpoint security software being managed in the cloud. Sophos Central can manage all of the Sophos security products, including all the firewalls, the endpoint security. Basically, you end up with one web interface for all of your security stuff. That's actually going to be a big feature, especially moving forward with XG, due to the fact that, if XG detects anything fishy going on, you can shut down individual client networks, and not allow any traffic to go through.

 Our Exchange ActiveSync is actually behind a Cisco firewall. We have a Cisco ASA also.

We use the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've largely been satisfied with the product.

As a company, you're looking to get the best solution out there. Once you have something in place, and it's worked well for you, and it hasn't cost you any excess money, you don't need to have too much contact with anyone. I rarely contact Sophos. That's a good indication of how good the product is working for us. If I was looking for something new, or if when maintenance comes up, and we've had hardware that's been in operation for a while, maybe we just need something new. Then you look and see if there's something out there that works better for you. That's basically it. We're not looking for anything new. We've actually been very happy with Sophos. I liked the way that there's a lot of good stuff there.

We are a solution provider and I am the architect of solutions that employ Sophos UTM.

Sophos was one of the first firewall products that were free, so you can install it at home and test it. Then when you have the experience, you can recommend it to customers.

Sophos UTM is the simplest of these products to setup. If you follow the instructions using the wizard, which is just a few steps, then you will have a firewall to protect you and your customer.

Sophos UTM is sensitive when it comes to setting up the SSL VPN, with the certificate.

The bandwidth speeds are limited, although this could be because they're doing web filtering. They need to have the time to filter all of the traffic.

The logs are not clear, which means that you need an additional piece of software in order to read them clearly. This is the main issue with Sophos UTM. Essentially, you need to spend time looking through the logs and if you want quicker access then you need to have third-party software.

I have been working with Sophos UTM for eight years.

This is a stable product. In my experience, I have only seen one case where, after four years, a customer's UTM was completely dead. The motherboard just died.

This customer had a license, so they contacted Sophos and within one week, they had a replacement.

It is easy to scale. You can set up a failover with a second Sophos device, where the second one is available as a backup. You have the option to set up Sophos Lite, which is a small device from Sophos that can link with your main unit.

For example, if you have remote offices, you can have the main Sophos device in your main office, and then all the branch offices connected using the lite model. All of the traffic goes to your main site, and it will provide all the web filtering.

The quality of technical support depends on who answers the call. When you reach the proper support person, they are really good and know what they're doing.

There is a lot of information available online, partly because Sophos is the old Cyberoam. Most of the time, I try to solve problems by myself. However, if I can't, I contact Sophos.

I am a certified Sophos architect, so I help to create the solution.

I have never had any trouble setting it up. There are some things that you have to do from the command line, but that's how Sophos and other products work. It is the same with Meraki and FortiGate. 

For the most part, it's straightforward and you just follow the wizard. The questions regard your internet connection, what service you expect Sophos to provide, and of course, the main one is the license because, for home users, it is free.

This product is free for home users. There is a limitation to the number of devices that can be connected, but nobody expects at home that there will be more than 50 devices connected to the firewall.

For business users, if you have the proper license, it will provide full protection not only as a firewall, but will protect your web server, Exchange Server, network, and provider web filtering capabilities. These days, that is really important. You don't want somebody to get in, or when a user clicks a link, they could lose some information.

The more expensive products have better performance. If you have fast broadband then you will need a bigger device, otherwise, it will slightly reduce the speed of your throughput. For example, if you have a gigabit connection with the cheapest model, perhaps a UTM 320, then it will cut the speed by approximately 50% to 500 megabits.

We sell the Meraki MX solution to protect some of our customers, and we are resellers of FortiGate as well.

Sophos is easier to set up than Meraki.

When it comes to reading the logs of other devices, it is much easier with Meraki, FortiGate, or even the Sophos XG firewall.

At the moment, all of the firewalls on the market are doing the same thing. Once you buy the license, it will cover everything.

Sophos UTM is a comprehensive product that does the job that it should. They have another product now, called the XG firewall, that covers everything that UTM does not. The best part about this is that you can run the XG firewall on the same hardware where UTM is installed. This means that if you're thinking that Sophos UTM is not good for you, you can always migrate to the XG firewall. That said, I have never had a problem setting up UTM and can't think of a problem that I couldn't solve with it.

Overall, UTM is good, but if you want something better that can handle more complex rules then you can use the XG firewall. My only complaint is that they limit the bandwidth, depending on the model.

The suitability of this product depends on the customer's needs. If they don't need really complicated firewall rules, yet want to protect the network and want really good web filtering, then I recommend using Meraki. If on the other hand, they have a really complicated setup and want better filtering, then Sophos is the better option.

Also, if you have your own web server or mail server on-site, then I recommend Sophos. If instead, you have a normal office network with mail stored in the cloud, then I recommend Meraki.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Sophos UTM offers considerable protection and employs a very well-structured pricing scheme.

It's a good choice for businesses that need a basic security solution with a good price-performance ratio. However, it's not a good choice for businesses that need a complex security solution. That's why I'm also considering Fortinet, which can provide a more comprehensive security solution.

I like the simplicity of Sophos UTM and the web filtering features.

The application control is really bad. It needs a lot of enhancements. The traffic shaping and bandwidth control, and application control need a lot of work.

In future releases, Sophos can enhance its quality of service. 

I have been using this solution for 11 years. 

There are two aspects to consider: software stability and hardware stability. The software is a bit stable, but the hardware needs a lot of improvement. So the software can be rated nine out of ten, but the hardware is only seven out of ten.

The software solution is not very scalable. So, it can be improved. 

We have about 50 customers right now using this solution. 

The initial setup is easy. It took half an hour to deploy. 

It is a complex security solution for firewalls. So there are a lot of implementation concerns. It's not like a wireless solution or something like that. So there's no direct answer for this one, especially for security solutions.

For the deployment, maintenance, and management, you need two security engineers. You need security engineers, not just regular engineers.

The ROI is extremely high.

The cost of the license depends on the size of the firewall appliance. There is a huge variety of pricing models.  

Sophos UTM has very reasonable pricing. 

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

It's a good firewall solution for small and medium businesses, but it's not the best choice for businesses with complex security requirements. 

I would recommend that businesses carefully consider their requirements before choosing Sophos UTM. If you need advanced application control, you should look for a different firewall solution.

It is used to protect the servers. It is a very transparent solution. 

Sophos integrates seamlessly and we don't even feel it is running in the background. 

I found just one instance of a virus on somebody's email, and Sophos cut it off immediately. Then the admin said, "Oh, this is a virus. That's a new one." They found out that I hadn't updated some virus information.

The virus updates will always depend on new viruses that are discovered. Maybe they can send a notification or a reminder for update time. 

We have been using Sophos UTM for two years. 

It is absolutely stable. 

We have over 200 users in my company. We are planning on increasing the usage. We never faced any issue with scalability. 

We have local support and go through our company's tech support. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It was implemented within five minutes. 

The central admin team deployed the solution. There were around three to four members of the team. 

It is easy to install and transparent solution. I would recommend using the solution. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

We use Sophos UTM to secure Internet connection inside our company and to provide secure remote access to the in-office network.

I like the web filtering options and the link to Sophos antivirus (Close all connections from-to infected PC).

I would like some features that are available in other brands. For example, I sometimes a person is using too much bandwidth, and it isn't easy to find this information in Sophos. Also, we have to switch connections manually when we are using a VPN and lose the MPLS connection. It isn't automatic. 

I have used Sophos UTM for five years.

I rate Sophos support seven out of 10. 

Neutral

Sophos UTM is a little pricey, but it's reasonable if I compare it to Fortinet. 

I rate Sophos UTM eight out of 10. 

Regarding the use cases, the solution was deployed for a production client, which was a hardware production company.

The features that I have found most valuable in Sophos UTM are its scalability and feasibility, as well as the quality of its customer service, followed by the ease of maintenance and configuration of the product itself.

Palo Alto has a different market because of their dashboard, overall looks, and other features. They are costly, but their services are quite good. And they offer a different platform compared to their competitors. Their device operates differently from others. While Palo Alto and Sophos have similar features, they operate on different platforms, providing a superior user experience compared to existing devices. In short, the UI and UX are the areas of improvement in Sophos UTM and similar solutions compared to Palo Alto.

I have experience with Sophos UTM for nearly two years. Recently, I deployed two Sophos solutions, one with HA and one on a primary device. The deployment process for one of the companies was done last month.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable product. So it is easy to scale it up.

The solution's customer service is good. I rate the solution's technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is quite easy because they have all the information on their website. Customer service is available anytime, especially when you set to start the device's configuration.

Since I was just a part of the initial configuration after deployment, I don't know the steps in the deployment process.

Both the technical and cost aspects are feasible since it is possible to obtain and use the device as a PnP solution. Considering cost and technical aspects, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Even if I compare Sophos UTM with other solutions, I don't think any pros or cons stick out since our clients are okay with the solution, and there has been no complaint regarding Sophos UTM.

My advice to others planning to use the solution is that it is quite easy. You can simply refer to the solution's blog or YouTube videos and install the solution. It's also quite easy to configure it. So, if you purchase it by yourself, you can configure it and use it on your particular network.

I love working with Palo Alto. So, I would like to give it a ten out of ten. Also, Palo Alto has a different market. So, I would always give a nine out of ten for other solutions. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for firewalls. 

The firewall in general is very good. It is comparable to other firewalls. 

Since any environment needs a firewall, it's been helpful in its ability to be highly granular in its configurations. 

Sophos is a security-focused company, which I like. I like that all Sophos products can essentially talk to each other. For example, if a computer has the Sophos antivirus, and it detects something, it actually talks to the Sophos firewall and says, "Hey, I think something is going wrong on this computer." Then, the firewall goes, "You know what? I'm going to shut it down for a while. I'm going to close off all incoming and outgoing connections from that unit until an IT admin comes in and tells me to release it."

It's very scalable.

The solution is stable. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

I don't really have any notes for improvements. I don't need additional features. 

I've been using the solution for three or more years. 

The solution's stability is excellent, and it is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is very scalable and easily expands. 

I'm also familiar with Meraki. Sophos, however, has the ability to talk to other Sophos products. 

Meraki would be all isolated, meaning you have a different antivirus. It'll try to block and scan and do its thing, however, the firewall will always allow the connection to go through. Nothing is stopping it from isolating it. From a Sophos perspective, every single thing talks to each other, whether it's Sophos Central, Sophos email security, Sophos antivirus, or Sophos firewall.

They all talk to each other and look at how attackers come in because attackers don't just, poof, appear on a computer. There's a route it needs to take and different layers of protection it has to go through. If all of your layers, your roads, and everything is all Sophos, they all jive, and that's great.

The ease of setup is dependent on the level of technical expertise. If you are a qualified tech, all firewalls should be pretty simple to deploy, depending on the environment. It's simple enough to implement in general. 

We have witnessed a positive ROI while using the solution. 

Price-wise, you get the bang for your buck. You get a huge value set. Ask for HA, high availability, since a lot of Sophos resellers sell two firewalls, the second one being free. Then, you only pay for one license. If your first firewall fails, the license migrates to the second one.

We are using a variety of different versions of the solution right now. 

It's really, really cool to look into Sophos. I highly recommend it. From an infrastructure, stability, and security perspective in terms of configuring in a granular way, Sophos does it all. It's a really good product and something to look into. 

It's also a lot cheaper than Meraki. It does way more than Meraki. Dollar to dollar, Sophos will likely beat Meraki. For example, with Meraki, you're going to be paying two or three times more for nothing spectacular, nothing different. You just get a portal. It's okay. With Sophos, you do have to know what you're doing, however, any network admin should be able to figure it out. It's not like an ancient hieroglyphic language. It's quite straightforward.

I'd rate it nine out of ten. 

This is a next-generation firewall. I use it for mail security for clients. 

The mail security is very good. 

It's quite stable.

The solution can scale. 

The sanctions make it difficult for us in Iran to take full advantage of this product, like many others. 

It needs a better user interface. The one they have is not so good. 

I've used the solution for a while. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is very scalable. The solution is very easy to expand as needed. That's not a problem.

We have 500 or 600 clients on the solution. 

I do not use technical support. Having never dealt with them, I cannot speak to the level of service they provide. 

For sharing and mail security, the solution is very good. I'd recommend it to other users. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. If they offered a better user interface, I would rate them higher.