Sophos XGS Reviews

Sophos helps us set public restrictions and add category filtering to secure the network. It provides ATS and IPS scanning for further protection.

I like the Sophos UI. It interface has a more comfortable feel than the competitors.

I recommend Sophos increase the user capacity of the firewall by 1.5 times. For example, say the firewall can accommodate 1,000 users now, then it should handle a load of 1,500 users.

We've been using Sophos XGS for seven years.

Sophos is a stable product.

Sophos XGS is scalable. My company has almost 6,000 users.

We've contacted Sophos support multiple times for help troubleshooting.

We used a Cisco firewall for four years before Sophos. My company has multiple locations, and some had Sophos, but others used Cisco. After we had a good experience with Sophos, we moved the entire company to Sophos.

Installation is pretty straightforward compared to Juniper and Cisco products. The Sophos installation offers better guidance. 

We handled the installation and configuration with our in-house team.

Sophos isn't expensive. It's a mid-range solution that's cheap but not too much cheaper than competitors. It's a good price that meets all our compliance requirements. 

I rate Sophos XGS eight out of 10. 

Sophos XGS is a unified threat management solution that combines features such as routing, access management, firewall, threat management, and URL filtering for sandboxing. It serves as a security appliance with multiple capabilities.

The valuable features of Sophos XGS include network protection, web protection, application control, intrusion detection, and iCentral orchestration. These features are beneficial for the product's security posture.

The solution could improve by using fewer hardware resources compared to other products like Palo Alto, which has better performance. 

Additionally, better integration of AI and machine learning for predictive analysis of potential threats could be beneficial. 

The technical support also needs improvement, including a better ticketing system and faster response times.

I have been using Sophos XGS firewall for more than 15 years, with approximately twelve years of precise usage.

I would rate the stability of Sophos XGS as a six out of ten. There have been observations of downtimes compared to other devices, and it doesn't perform as well as competitors like Palo Alto or Check Point.

Sophos XGS has scalability issues as it doesn't have features like cascading. Instead, it requires new devices to scale, unlike Palo Alto which allows adding devices to a pool.

The technical support is quite poor and needs significant improvements in response time and quality, especially for medium and small enterprises. It seems other brands face similar issues, but the costs rise for premium support, which is challenging for smaller entities.

Neutral

The initial setup of Sophos XGS is simple compared to other firewalls.

The pricing for Sophos products is considered high. The pricing model needs to be more flexible, catering differently to sectors like education, which might not require as high a price point.

I can recommend Sophos XGS for small to medium companies and the education sector. It is less ideal for enterprises with very high-security needs. Organizations with sensitive data should consider alternatives like Palo Alto or Fortinet.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall. 

We have multiple clients. The use case is based on their requirements, for example, as a site-to-site VPN or maybe as an FSL VPN for end users to promote the network access of company systems. Apart from that, it is used for web filtering and URL blocking. Apart from that, it's on a regular day-to-day basis used as a firewall.

It covers most areas that are needed.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution is scalable. 

It's stable. 

We've had issues with support. If they improved on the support part, that would be great.

They should customers who are facing issues with their product reviews; they found bots in it. If they can do their proper research and use the user analysis and testing, that would greatly help the clients.

The software release has been giving us problems.

Other firewalls provide better reporting. We need admin and activity logs to be populated for the firewall. 

For the Sophos XGS, I've been working with it for the last four years. Overall, for firewalls in general, I've been working with solutions for more than ten years.

The solution is stable. We haven't really had any issues until a bug hits the firewall. 

We are the service provider to the client, so we have a total of 28 people, excluding the team lead and the presale technical support or maybe a presale technical person. They are working directly on Sophos XGS. e tend to deal with enterprise-level customers. We don't have small-scale organizations under our portfolio. This solution is best suited for mid-range companies and larger. 

The solution is pretty scalable. I'd rate it a three out of five in terms of ease of scalability.

Support has been very poor.

Neutral

We have three major products, which we offer to clients. They are Palo Alto, Cisco ACI, and Sophos XGS.

There are many major differences between Sophos and Palo Alto. This product is not comparable to Palo Alto right now. Maybe the basic models of the Palo Alto can be compared with the Sophos XGS firewall, however, not the higher-end ones. Palo Alto is much more advanced. 

The solution is straightforward to set up. It is not overly complex.

How long it takes to deploy depends on how the implementation is requested. It won't take more than one hour if it is a basic implementation like setting up the firewall with ISP connections and all those things. However, if it is a complete setup with implementations, other tests, and all those things, it takes around six to seven hours.

After the installation, we do the software updates periodically along with the model which the client has purchased Apart from that, we also do the maintenance of the various policies and other configurations. We do make changes to the firewalls based on changing industry standards, et cetera.

I'd rate the ease of implementation a four out of five. 

If the customer requests assistance with the initial setup, however, we will provide an engineer to them. They'll come to the implementation site and assist.

I don't take care of the licensing part. There is a separate team.

We are a Sophos Gold partner. 

We have multiple firewalls on multiple OS versions. Basically, we do have two major pieces of software installed in the firewall, which are 1854 MR4 and the latest release, 1801.

There are multiple criteria when making a decision about whether to go with Sophos or maybe another firewall. It depends on the client's requirements as well as their budget. 

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

The solution provides firewall protection.

The solution is easy to use and configure, once you know how to apply the policies.

The customer service response time can be improved.

I am currently using the solution.

The stability is good. I have not had any problems with it.

The scalability of the solution is good.

The customer service response time is slow and could use improvement.

The setup is straightforward if you know how to do iOS.

The cost is around $50 per endpoint, and there is a one-time purchase fee for the firewalls of $2,500, plus services. It is roughly around $4,000.

I am currently evaluating CrowdStrike. I like it better.

I give this solution seven out of ten.

If you are looking for a low-cost solution, cheaper than Cisco I recommend this solution. You should also look at Fortinet.

we are using Sophos XGS for full control over our network.

Sophos XGS has improved our organization.

The most valuable feature of Sophos XGS is its ease of use.

The price of Sophos XGS could improve, it is high.

I have been using Sophos XGS for approximately two years.

Sophos XGS is stable.

The scalability of Sophos XGS is good.

We have approximately 10 technicians that know how to use the solution.

The support from Sophos XGS was responsive. They solved the issues we had.

Positive

We have not used another solution prior to Sophos XGS.

The initial setup of Sophos XGS was easy. The time it took for us to implement the solution was approximately one month.

We use a third party with our in-house team to do the implementation. We have 10 workers that maintain the solution.

I rate the return on investment for Sophos XGS a three out of five.

There is an annual licensing fee to use Sophos XGS. It is an expensive solution.

I rate the price of Sophos XGS a four out of five.

We did not evaluate another solution before choosing Sophos XGS.

I rate Sophos XGS seven out of ten.

XGS' most valuable feature is ransomware protection. 

In the next release, XGS should include mobile features like two-factor authorization.

I've been using XGS for seven years.

XGS is stable.

XGS is scalable.

Sophos' technical support has degraded in the last couple of years. They seem to need to ask a lot of questions, even with simple problems, and take a long time to provide solutions.

Neutral

The initial setup is simple.

XGS' price could be lower, though it's moderately priced in the market.

I also evaluated SonicWall and FortiGate.

XGS is a perfect product for small and medium businesses. I would rate it as eight out of ten.

Sophos XGS is used as a firewall to protect my home network.

Sophos XGS that's a good firewall. If you use the endpoint, then you have what Sophos calls synchronized security. That will mean that if one of the endpoints is affected, it will be automatically set in isolation.

In the new release 19, there should be the implementation of a cloud service that you can use to set up the IPSec tunnels, and the SD-WAN from the WAN dashboard, and then you can push that configuration out to every firewall that you have.

I have been using Sophos XGS within the last 12 months.

Sophos XGS is highly stable.

The hardware is more scalable than the MSPs, you can have a firewall as big as your want. The solution is scalable.

The technical support in Norway is very good. I have had an excellent experience with them. However, I am the technical support for the Sophos XGS in my country of Norway. 

We have very good contact with the Sophos SEs in Scandinavia. I think we're good.

When comparing Sophos XGS to other similar solutions they are 80 to 90 percent similar. But Sophos firewall has a web application firewall that you can license and use in the firewall. Not every firewall has that functionality. Typically you have to buy another client if you want the web application firewall but within Sophos XGS, you can have it within the firewall.

I have used other solutions, such as CheckPoint, SonicWall, and WatchGuard.

The initial setup could be difficult depending on what you are looking to do with it. However, if you only use it as a firewall, it's straightforward. You can make complex SD WANs and other configurations. You can do whatever you want with it. At home, I can just configure it straight as it is by clicking next until it is finished. If you have a complex environment then the setup of Sophos XGS could be difficult.

The price of the solution is reasonable and their target market is small to medium-sized companies.

We do not have any complaints from our customers and have the functionality that our partners and customers need.

I rate Sophos XGS a ten out of ten.

In some instances, we are using it in a virtual appliance in a VMware environment.

I will not rely on Sophos to build my infrastructure. For that, I will go to Fortinet or Palo Alto. However, from an end-user management perspective and the granular control and the reporting stuff, I still prefer Sophos. 

We are using Sophos as our internet gateway for specific sites that don't have to do with the backend tunneling and the infrastructure and all that stuff.

I have found some difficulties in other products, like in Fortinet, where there is no end-user visibility in a presentable form that non-technical people can interpret. I'm talking more specifically about non-technical management. You have to present something. Apart from that, the end-user integration is fine if you are using it for NCL and or as an internet gateway. Sophos allows for more visibility.

However, as far as infrastructure is concerned, if I have to apply this as a device in my data center or at any critical point, this device fails to perform. The hardware is not up to par. Even if I answered from proxy to transparent, transparent proxy to the full proxy mode, there are some hardware difficulties.

The centralized security is very good. 

The heartbeat system, the reporting management, and the electoral control that is achieved when the Sophos XGS is integrated with the Sophos endpoint is great.

It's close to the top of the line, alongside Trend Micro in terms of security reporting.

It is easy to set up.

I have observed that there are some reliability issues with these products in regard to the hardware performance and RMS.

I've witnessed many devices go down - even three on the same day. I've never seen that, for example, with Fortinet.

The stability could be a bit better.

I would like to have a proper SD-WAN orchestration solution. They are working on it. However, it still needs some improvement. Apart from that, it would be better if they provide the email gateway and the WAF not as a feature in the existing XG but as a dedicated appliance. Barracuda and Fortinet, for example, are providing dedicated services for the WAF and email gateway. Compared to that, Sophos is not up to the same level.

I've used the solution for around five years.

While their endpoint is a stable solution, their firewall needs to be improved in regard to integration with other products. I have specifically witnessed a case where we tried to integrate Sophos XG with the DLP product by Force Point. That wasn't supported right away. FortiGate was supporting that particular model.

I would like to have scalable products, however, normally what I have witnessed is that every new product that they push out or any additional feature that they push out in a new VMware version or specifically for the firewall may have some stability issues. So scalability at the cost of stability is not an option for me.

We have about 250 to 300 users. We have multiple branches that use this product. Usually, it's the development team, and hardware and software users. 

We may expand usage. It will depend on the additional sites we may operationalize soon.

I've had some direct escalation experiences with the country manager and their technical lead. I tend to get a good response.

While in general technical support can be better sometimes, as far as their resolutions are concerned, the team is providing us with technical assistance, and their approach to resolutions can be a bit tricky. Normally they try to avoid dealing with the solution so you have to dig it out and you have to work on it yourself, or you have to push them that there must be a solution.

Neutral

I have some expertise in Sophos and Fortinet; I'm not so sure about Cisco. We are also using Palo Alto.

We had some granular control in Sophos that was a bit advantageous to us. That's why switched. Also, the reporting, AD integration and the Sophos endpoint integration were key drivers in making the change.

The solution is simple to set up. It's not overly complex. It only takes a couple of minutes. 

YOu only need one person to handle maintenance. 

I handled the initial setup myself. 

We pay for the solution on a yearly basis, and it is fine. The renewal costs are typically reasonable. If you compare the general cost to Fortinet or Palo Alto, it's lower and more affordable. YOu can also pay for extra support.

We are a Sophos end-user.

For small enterprises or even for some enterprises that do not require large infrastructure, I would recommend Sophos right away. In Pakistan, we have to present something to the management and most of the time the management of the company is non-technical. So the presentability factor and the users' granular control and integration factor, make it attractive. This product can be used as an internet gateway. I have already recommended it to multiple users not for the infrastructure but for the internet gateway or as a proxy service.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten. Some features still need improvement or to be built out, like  proper orchestrations or dedicated services.