Sophos XG Reviews

The primary use case for Sophos XG is basic firewalling and configuration. We use it primarily for installation purposes.

Time-saving and cost-saving benefits are realized, with stability contributing to these advantages. It provides approximately 10% to 15% savings in time and costs.

The most valuable features of Sophos XG include having rules and policies as a firewall. It is easy to configure.

The areas needing improvement are support and configuration. The delays in technical support can be handled better. Sometimes, configuration gives some issues.

I have been using Sophos XG for almost one year.

No hardware or software solution is 100% stable. I would rate it at about 99% accuracy.

Sophos XG has excellent scalability features. It is already available on cloud as well as on-premises, and you can scale up to multiple firewalls with centralized management. No limitations have been faced regarding scalability.

Customer service and support can be improved as there are delays. I would rate the support at eight out of ten.

Positive

Sophos XG is easy to install, generally requiring one person and takes about two to three hours depending on the rules and policies.

One person is usually sufficient for installation unless multiple dynamics are involved.

The return on investment is judged to be around three point five out of five in terms of stability, time saving, and cost saving.

The solution is considered cheap in terms of pricing.

For small and midsize enterprises, Sophos XG is a good choice without any major issues.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Actually, we are using Tekton for creating CI/CD pipelines for building and deploying applications to different environments.

It helped a lot in terms of automation. We sometimes use Tekton for purposes like sending emails, running batch jobs, and similar tasks.

The valuable features include cloud-native integration, which makes it highly available and efficient in modern containerized environments. Another feature is the modular pipeline that allows reusing CI/CD manifests for different purposes. This modularity helps in reducing redundancy and maintaining a streamlined process.

One area of improvement is the lack of cross-cluster capability, meaning you need different sets of tasks and pipelines for each Kubernetes cluster. Tekton also has an unstable API with frequent changes, making it challenging to maintain consistency across versions. Additionally, there's a need for a better dashboard and built-in authentication mechanisms.

It's about one and a half years we have been working with Tekton.

Tekton is quite stable when used in a well-established Kubernetes cluster. The stability largely depends on the stability of the Kubernetes environment itself, which is designed for high availability.

Tekton's scalability is one of its most advanced features. Since it uses the underlying Kubernetes infrastructure, it can scale easily if the Kubernetes cluster is sufficiently large. I would rate it eight out of ten for scalability.

We primarily used community resources like Stack Overflow for addressing our issues and did not directly contact Tekton's customer service.

Positive

In my previous company, we used GitLab and Jenkins for creating CICD pipelines. Currently, Tekton is the primary tool we are using, with Jenkins as a backup solution if Tekton encounters any issues.

The initial setup was manageable but required extensive reading and understanding of documentation. If the Kubernetes cluster is already in place, the setup can be completed in less than ten minutes.

The deployment of Tekton was done in-house with a team of six to seven people handling deployment, creating CI/CD pipelines, and maintaining the solution.

Tekton is an open-source tool, meaning there are no setup costs associated with it. I would rate the cost at one, indicating it is free to use.

In my previous company, we used GitLab and Jenkins for similar purposes.

My advice is to avoid using Tekton if possible due to its complex setup and lack of user-friendly features like a comprehensive dashboard and built-in authentication mechanisms.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

On-premises

Mainly as a firewall, and in some cases, as a firewall with camera surveillance integration. But primarily, it is used for firewall functionality.

I find the firewall functionality and unified threat management to be the most useful features.

The VPN has been a persistent problem for us. It's not straightforward to configure. We often encounter issues with setting up the VPN. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and we haven't been able to determine the cause.

So the VPN configuration could be less cryptic. It should be easier and more straightforward to configure. A simplified installation process and clearer instructions would be helpful. The current VPN configuration is a bit convoluted.

In additional features, it would be beneficial if Sophos XG could have an enhanced feature for aggregating bandwidth. Currently, it supports load balancing to some extent, but it would be even better if it could aggregate the bandwidth. For example, if I have multiple links, say two or three, it would be great if the solution could aggregate the bandwidth from those links. 

Ever since Sophos acquired Cyberoam. I used to use Cyberoam, and then Sophos took over Cyberoam. So I would say it's been about five to seven years since that transition happened. 

I have various versions because I'm a network service provider. I offer the high-end enterprise edition as well as the mid-range and basic versions. There are several different models available.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. It is very stable. 

When deploying on-premises, if you need to scale, you have to purchase additional hardware. So, on-premises scalability would be around six out of ten. You have to size the solution for future needs.

The cloud version is much more scalable. However, when it comes to on-premises deployments, scaling can be challenging. If you need to upgrade to a higher level, you have to acquire another hardware box. So, it's not as straightforward as cloud scalability, but it's still possible, though not as easy. 

There are about 200 users. They are small and medium businesses. 

I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. It required some experience in designing networks. It's not a simple "click-click-click" process; it requires the expertise of a network professional. So, if you're not experienced, it can be challenging.

It can be difficult for inexperienced users, but with the right knowledge and experience, it is manageable.

The deployment process involved acquiring the device, planning the network design, configuring it according to the desired network setup, and then connecting the necessary cables. It's a relatively straightforward process.

It only took an hour to deploy the solution.

It is fairly priced. I would rate it an eight out of ten. Mostly, I only purchase the standard license because I don't usually require the other features. It would cost approximately $2,000 on an annual basis.

Overall, my experience has been positive. I haven't encountered any major issues with it. It's easy to use and not cryptic. It's also quite stable, and I rarely experience any hangs or similar problems.

I would rate this product an eight out of ten because there is still room for improvement in VPN. 

On-premises

We use it for firewalling. Lately, we are also using it for remote access or VPN access for the users to the firewall and then onto the local network for people working from home. We've seen a huge jump in work from home. Everybody is working from home, so we need a secure connection to the office.

I am not using its latest version. I normally wait for a couple of months before upgrading the unit to make sure there are no bugs or issues. I check on the forums to see what other people are saying and whether there are any issues. 

There are many features. VPN, firewalling, and intrusion detection are the main features that are most useful for us at this time.

Their support is fairly good, and they come back to me. I've had an issue once or twice where I couldn't understand what the support person was saying because those calls were probably routed to India. They were a bit difficult to understand, but it is generally not an issue.

I have been using this solution for seven years.

It is stable. We've been dealing with it for such a long time. We know exactly how to set it up. Sometimes, clients have got funny ideas, and I just say to them, "You tell me what you need, and I'll do the config and set it up." I've got two clients who have got technical skills. One of them is fairly proficient on Sophos, so he does the work as well, but for most of our other clients, we set it up, and there are no issues. It just works.

It is scalable provided you purchase the correct product. We do a bit of homework. We don't just sell you the first device on the list because that's not always suitable. We do a scope of the client's business. They may be a startup with just five users, but they might have a plan to have 100 or 200 users. We need to just size according to what they anticipate to be. It is no good if we sell them an entry-level device now, and two months later, it is too small. We purchase according to a client's requirements.

We've got clients with four users, and the number can go up to hundreds. I'm currently busy setting one up for 150 users, and obviously, there is much more work involved in doing the remote VPN setups.

I use the local support in South Africa. If they can't help me, then I log a case with their international support. They're fairly good, and they come back to me. 

I've had an issue once or twice where I couldn't understand what the support person was saying because those calls were probably routed to India. They were a bit difficult to understand. They spoke so fast, and I could not hear what they were saying, but it is generally not an issue. It is not a showstopper, and we manage to work. If I don't understand, I say to them, "Can we rather chat by email?", which makes it a lot easier.

There some other firewalls that my company is using, but they're way below in terms of specs and what they can do. Sophos XG is a layer 7 firewall, and most of the others are only layer 2 firewalls. Sophos is far superior. 

I do not have any knowledge about Cisco, Juniper, or other firewalls. I don't really use them. I use some open-source firewalls, but they're also a lot lighter. I've got one or two very small clients or non-profits where we run an open-source firewall, but the feature set is way limited compared to Sophos.

Sophos XG comes in at a fair price as compared to some of the other products out there. Its learning curve wasn't that steep. It makes sense, and it is a sensible product. It is not like some of the other products.

It is simple for me. I've done so many setups. I can probably do these things in my sleep. In fact, I have got one in front of me now that I need to configure and install. I'm fairly proficient in the use of these devices. I'm happy with it.

The deployment duration depends on the setup. Some simple setups can be up and running within two hours. Complex ones most probably will take four to six hours. It also depends on the client's needs. Some of them have simple requirements, and they just want firewalling and one or two remote-access VPNs. Others have got a complex setup where we need to set up cameras and VoIP telephone systems. It all depends on a client's requirements.

It doesn't require any maintenance because the definitions are auto-updated. I've got a dashboard where I can manage all of the firewall devices from one dashboard. If I want to upgrade the software on 20 of them, I'll log onto the dashboard and upgrade the software just by selecting it and saying upgrade the software, and it is done. It requires very minimal handling on a day-to-day basis. Antivirus definitions, scanning definitions, and all those things are auto-updated anyway.

It comes at a fair price as compared to some of the other products out there. Its price is in the middle. It is not the cheapest, and it is also not as expensive as Juniper, Check Point, and definitely Cisco. Nowadays, everybody is very cost-sensitive, and people don't want to spend unnecessary money, but even before that, it was a fairly priced product.

You've got your choice of what license you want. There are basically two types of licenses, and it depends on what you need to do, and everything is included in that license. There is no cost for VPN and DMZ. You purchase the license, and you know upfront what you're getting or what you're not getting, and that's it. It is one license fee and done and dusted.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. I recommend it to all my clients. I'm using it at home as well, and it works great. I'm fairly proficient in it, so I'm very confident. I can recommend it to anybody and everybody. It is a great product, and I've got no issue with it.

I would rate Sophos XG a ten out of ten. It is a rock-solid product that works. We've so many deployments of this solution. I'm just happy with it. 

On-premises

We are a solution provider and this is one of the security solutions that we implement for our clients. The primary use for Sophos XG is to secure the internet for an organization. It does a bit of antivirus scanning, application filtering, web filtering, and normal firewalling. Security, obviously.

Some of our clients also have Sophos UAP and access points are also included in Sophos, which is the same with FortiGate.

Sophos XG is easy to manage. You've got the cloud logging and you can manage all of your Sophos firewalls from one cloud, the Sophos Central Portal.

The most valuable feature is endpoint security. If you want to install antivirus and firewalling on endpoints, then Sophos is the best option.

What I don't like about Sophos is that applying policies can sometimes take longer, and there can even be a bit of a network interruption. With FortiGate, it's just one click and then you go, but with Sophos, sometimes the wheel keeps spinning for several seconds.

The SD-WAN capability is not as good as it is in FortiGate, and is something that should be improved.

I have been working with Sophos XG for approximately two and a half years.

Stability-wise, it's almost as good as FortiGate.

I've been selling FortiGate for 10 years and Sophos for two and a half years. I think that Sophos is just about on par with FortiGate. We just had a small thing with a client, but I don't know if that's really going to be reason enough. In terms of stability, I think they are quite good. The issue we had was the locks, and it was causing slowness or interruptions, but that was really not an issue. It's a small thing.

Sophos XG is very scalable. You can go from small to large-sized use cases.

I think that the technical support is very good, and similar to FortiGate,

I actually dealt directly with a Sophos engineer and I must admit, they've been very fortunate that the guy can help even on the weekends and so forth. I'm very impressed with that.

I primarily work with FortiGate, but I am currently dabbling in OPNSense to see if I can learn it. I've also installed Cisco in the past, as well as Sophos.

Although about 80% of our clients ask for FortiGate, some of our clients ask for Sophos instead. For example, there are some banks and commercial institutions that ask for Sophos.

Sophos is better than FortiGate with respect to endpoint protection.

The initial setup is as easy as it is with FortiGate. These products are definitely easier to install than a solution like OPNsense because it is just a hardware appliance.

The price of this solution is mid-range. Obviously, it will never beat OPNsense because that product is available free of charge. Sophos XG is not expensive for a firewall, especially when you compare it with Check Point. Check Point is a really expensive product.

Sophos XG is a bit more expensive than companies like BitDefender and Kaspersky, but their endpoint software is very good.

The suitability of this product depends on the use case. If somebody wants to have full endpoint protection then Sophos is the best choice. If they just want a normal UTM without endpoint software, then FortiGate is slightly better, but only slightly because of the SD-WAN capabilities. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

We essentially use Sophos XG to protect our customers. Most of our customers use remote VPN connections. They also use the WAF protection for exposed internet WEB servers.

The web application firewall or WAF is very useful. Web application firewalls help keep your servers safe from hackers by scanning activity and identifying probes and attacks.
Using the Web Application Firewall (WAF), also known as reverse proxy, Sophos
UTM lets you protect your webservers from attacks and malicious
behavior like cross-site scripting (XSS), SQL injection, directory
traversal, and other potent attacks against your servers.
You can define external addresses (virtual webservers) which should be
translated into the "real" machines in place of using the DNAT rule(s).
From there, servers can be protected using a variety of patterns and
detection methods.

This function has been completely re-developed in XG, relatively of the UTM-9 version, and it works fine. I protect many internet web servers (IIS) for my customers with this function, due to of a lot of attempted attacks. It's a very useful and relatively simple to implement in Sophos XG.

Obviously, like all security systems, it is not a "fire and forget" configuration. It is necessary to properly analyze the system to be protected, create an appropriate policy and monitor its behavior once activated.

https://support.sophos.com/sup...

I think Sophos XG can improve some annex features. Like in DHCP, we can't make IP reservations in the range. We must reserve out of the range, which is not good. It will not be the same as the DHCP function in a Windows Server. We can't make an IP reservation in the range of the DHCP in the Sophos.

Better in the next release? I hope...

Sophos can also improve the debugging of the WAF function and provide a better resolution in the log, in the attached WEB log. The initial error doesn't appear. You must tail the console log to find the source pattern, cause of the error.

I have been using Sophos XG for about tree years.

Sophos XG is stable. I don't encounter problems that are typical with broken systems. But bugs in the system exists. Last example, I discovered a bug is in the asymmetric routing implementation. In a specific network configuration, asymmetric routing, with sub-net 25 doesn't work, but mask 24 and mask 26 works!!

But this is just a bug, and Sophos' support is very good to correct quickly, ASAP.

I only had a break function once because of the appliance BIOS. The Sophos support send me a new BIOS very quickly, and the problem was resolved.

I have a lot of issues with Sophos technical support. I still have some pending issues that need to be resolved. It's very odd in the beginning because your first contact is with the sub-part of another sub-part of Sophos based in India or Pakistan. It's very odd to have a quick connection with the second level or third level engineer at Sophos in UK.

I have personal contact with some security managers and the sub-part manager of Sophos support. When they don't resolve a problem quickly, I send an email, or I call my contacts Sophos UK, and it happens! They have good reactivity.

We start with Sophos UTM-9, the old version of Sophos firewalls, and then we switched to the XG.

The initial setup of the last version of Sophos XG is good. The initialization is very simple, but you must prepare it. You need an Sophos customer account , on the web cell, to declare easy a firewall.

It'll ask for an account, and you can create it in the interface, but it's better to prepare it before in the Sophos site, to have the account ready, for the first initialization of the firewall.

The deployment time depends on the system's complexity, the number of ISPs, the number of sub-nets, WAF functions and VPNs. 

It's normally very easy for a little company. A retail company with 20-30 computer-users, and a simple connection to the internet, it'll take about four to six-hours to deploy. If you need to fine-tune it, maybe two hours more. So like eight hours or a day to deploy.

Sophos XG isn't expensive compared to Check Point. Sure, Check Point is the Rolls-Royce of firewalls: It's great, it's fun, technically good tunned, but it's very expensive. 

But the specs and technical side of Sophos XG are close to Check Point, and the price is lower. It's better for our customers. I can do the same complex configurations with Sophos XG that I used to do on Check Point firewalls.

The main difference between Sophos XG and Check Point is keylogging and working with clouds. Both FortiGate and Watchguard doesn't have  in log packet analyzer to do so deeply. 

For me personally, Check Point firewall is the best firewall, because the log console is the power key of the firewalls. But Sophos XG is the main challenger of Check Point, I think. You can open the debugging packet analyzer, like a Wireshark, directly in the WEB log console. This function is a powerful tool and must be discovered, because it's very useful for quick debugging.

If I had to rank them, it's Check Point first, second, Sophos XG, and in third with FortiGate and Watchguard. We chose Sophos XG because it's much cheaper than Check Point.

I think it's very important to choose the right appliance first. Implementing a lot of things like VPN, IPS strong protection and WAF functions will stress more the appliance CPU. It depend also with the number of connections and number of users too.

Sophos XG is a lot of fun because you can change the appliance model without changing the configuration. You can back-up the configuration of the old appliance and import into the new appliance without spending hour for migration. It's powerful, and the new system is quickly operational.

Another key is VPN LAN to LAN in SSL, allowing connections to be set up much faster. Is this the end of the old IPSEC protocol? No, but it is a function which increases the versatility of the Sophos XG firewall.

Last, but not least, the virtual appliance works perfectly, in private or public clouds. Very simple to implement, work perfectly.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Sophos XG a nine. 

On-premises

Microsoft Azure

We sell Sophos XG devices.

Sophos XG includes all basic features and has a secured proxy mechanism. Network security proxy authentication is available through a web-based proxy. The older proxy mechanism is not there. Pricing is very competitive, much cheaper compared to other brands like Palo Alto, Check Point, and Fortinet. Additionally, the performance of the hardware has been increased, although it is not negligible compared to other brands.

The direct proxy or proxy mechanism is missing. Legacy applications should have this option, but Sophos XG has removed it. This feature was available in UTM nine but not in XG.

I have been using Sophos XG for one or two years.

Deploying Sophos XG was not difficult. It took a couple of weeks to fully deploy the solution, and the process was quite fast and not complicated.

I have premium support from Sophos, and the support is good. They respond well and have a good support team.

Neutral

Pricing of Sophos XG is very good compared to other brands. The pricing is very cheap. For example, if Palo Alto is priced at 200, then Sophos is priced at 75, which is a significant difference.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the overall solution between seven and eight.

I use Sophos XG as a channel partner, providing it to our customers for next-generation firewall solutions, Wi-Fi access points, and other security features. My customers include industries such as banking, manufacturing, IT, hospitals, and healthcare.

I regard Sophos XG as a superior choice among firewalls due to its advanced security, user manual, and control panel features, among others. The firewall offers effective policy management, bandwidth management, and group policy features from a sales perspective. 

Additionally, customer support is highly regarded, with a technical representative swiftly addressing customer queries through the Sophos partner portal.

Sophos XG is reaching its end-of-life and end-of-support; therefore, the user count limitation of particular models should be improved.

I have been working with Sophos XG for around five to six years.

I would rate the stability of Sophos XG as ten out of ten.

I rate scalability as ten out of ten, indicating that it is easy to scale up for a larger number of users.

The technical support from Sophos XG is excellent. When my customers raise a ticket, a customer representative calls them immediately to address their queries. I rate customer service nine out of ten.

Positive

The setup process is easy and I would rate it ten out of ten.

My customers see a return on investment and value for money with Sophos XG.

I consider the pricing reasonable; it depends on the model and license type, like one-year, two-year, or five-year licenses. Compared to other firewalls like Fortigate, SonicWall, and Palo Alto, I find Sophos XG cost-effective. 

I highly recommend using Sophos XG for enhanced security purposes and organizational structure implementation. Furthermore, I rate Sophos XG as ten out of ten.

On-premises