Sophos XGS Reviews

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.

In terms of the firewall, I'm using Sophos X on everything, including the VPN, firewall, and endpoints.

Everything about the product is okay. 

I cannot single out anything specifically, as the firewall is working perfectly. The endpoint is helping me greatly and people have been able to work from home using the VPN. It has been great.

The pricing has been fine so far.

It has a pretty straightforward initial setup.

The solution's quite stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support has always been very helpful.

In terms of updates with the current technologies and current trends, which we're always exposed to, they update their databases frequently. 

It quickly detects issues. 

It is a plug-and-play system. 

Mainly, it's a cloud-based firewall for cloud-based endpoint protection. I can be able to manage my devices from anywhere without configuring all these VLANs and whatnot.

If I could host my emails using an email transfer agent, hosting it, it would be ideal.

The configurations can be a bit complex. It may be a while before you understand the configuration process.

If you do not have any experience with the product, you may struggle to set it up.

I'd like to see more integrated services from Sophos so I can handle everything from one place without a third-party. I would like to have email hosting and management integrated into Sophos XGS.

I've been using the solution for more than five years now.

It is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale. It just depends on the model we are using. For example, on an XG transit, I can add as many users as I want. On XG 105, I can only have limited users. It depends on the package.

We have more than 80 general users on the solution. We use it intermittently.

I've dealt with support several times. They were awesome. We found them to be helpful and responsive. They are quite knowledgable. 

Positive

The setup process is perfectly okay. I'm an IT administrator. It's not very difficult for me to get everything up and running. I also need to check the integration. 

I'd rate the initial setup a four out of five in terms of ease of execution. 

In terms of pricing, it's good. They've been giving us some promotions where we would pay for two years and get an extra year free. We appreciate that level of savings.

We paid for a three-year license a while ago. I can't recall the exact amount that was paid. It was likely around $12,000 or less - around $4,000 a year.

It's one of the best pricing strategies they have used. Initially, if I were paying for a year, I would pay around $5,000 or $6,000. 

It is very affordable for a small enterprise. It is very competitive.

I am looking into Sophos NAC.

We are a customer of Sophos. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall.

Sophos XGS is okay. It’s excellent for firewall purposes.

For me, the platform is stable. It's very stable. It works when it's configured. Also, when you're checking, the logs, the graph, and the graphs are easy to read.

I can also use it for other purposes. For example, it's got a DSCP from there. It can be a distribution. I can have other functions work there, so I can do a lot more than just the firewall components.

It gets easier and easier to set up.

It works. However, Sophos configurations are a bit complex. It's not very user-friendly. I don't find it user-friendly when it comes to setting up the firewalls.

The user interface for the technical admin can be better. It should be set forward to configure a firewall. if a firewall has complexities. I don't know why they did that. However, you should be able to quickly set up a rule to minimize the mistakes that a security administrator or a firewall administrator can make and configure. If not, that becomes an issue. One mistake on a firewall could result in a bridge.

It should be more straightforward. If you compare it with GFI Carrier Control Firewall, which is very straightforward, you can see why it’s helpful when it's easier.

I’ve used the solution for about three years now.

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

The solution is scalable. However, it depends on the model of the physical appliance. There are virtual and physical appliances, so it depends on which one you use. Obviously, there could be a limitation on the number of interfaces you need to use since you may want to have additional services plugged in. Then, the number of ports available may only be two, and yet you actually need to have 10. Maybe you need to buy a module that plugs in; however, there could be a challenge there.

In our organization, we have three to four security administrators.

I've never spoken to technical support directly the way I've been talking to the Fortinet team. I was working with a local partner to get it set up.

In our case, since we were doing it for the first time, we took about a week to complete everything. We were doing a lot of other things and learning as we went. If I had to redo it now, it wouldn't take me a week as I know exactly what I need to do after learning over a period of time. Also, I have backups that allow me to back up and restore, so I just restore the configuration. It’s much more manageable. The first time there’s a learning curve.

We work with a partner and distributor. We are working with the sales party since it was the first time we used them. They offer us professional services.

I found the solution to be expensive. I pay close to $10,000 per year, which I find to be expensive compared to the other similar solution or equivalent solutions.

It's just that one cost, and it's an annual license. As long as my appliance is working okay, I don't need to replace it. However, it's just that. Of course, within that, there are also support services. You might have technical support costs depending on which one of the tiers you pick.

I'm a customer of Sophos.

We’re using the most up-to-date version of the solution. It’s around version 18.

A new user needs to get trained on the appliance to understand how to implement rules and fully appreciate how to work with it. It's not that straightforward. You need to understand what the different areas are. It's complex in the way the rules are set up. My colleagues in the industry have similar comments about Sophos. It’s more complicated than it looks.

I’d rate the solution a seven out of ten, mainly due to the complexity. If I make a mistake, then that firewall is of no use. It needs to be easier to set up so that it provides me or guarantees me that what I want to set up is what I've set up to secure my environment.

It is a firewall appliance that is used to provide security for network infrastructures. We have it deployed at the edge of our network and we also sell it to other clients to protect their network infrastructure. 

This solution is really easy to use and deploy. It has a dashboard where you can see everything going on within your network. There is also a cloud component so if you need to secure your computers or servers, this can be done using Central Intercept X Advances. Everything is connected to their cloud platform where you can manage either your end point solution or your firewalls.

I have been using this solution for five years. 

It is very stable. I have not heard of any issue where clients would have to replace hardware. It's been really stable for a long while.

This is a scalable solution. This does depend on the are different categories of the XGS. The license you buy would be determined by the number of users intended to use it. 

The support team are helpful when you eventually get hold of them which takes a long time. They can improve how quickly you get technical support.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward and takes 15 minutes. The time it takes to setup depends on what you're trying to achieve and how complex you want your configuration to be. 

We completed the implementation in-house for our business and for some of our clients. 

We have started seeing ROI using this solution because one of their products helps you to prevent ransomware. It has helped to prevent ransomware from encrypting one of the systems of one of our staff. That is a huge return on investment

The cost is $10,000 for an annual subscription. 

This is a good product for small and medium enterprises. I can't say how it performs in a large environment. It is a very stable solution. Just like every other product, you need to have someone that has the necessary skill set to manage it. Somebody needs to learn how to set it up and configure it depending on the environment.

We are using it as a firewall to protect and control Internet access, as well as control other access like SAP. Some of our employees connect from remote locations, and our server is on-premises. We use this firewall for access control and also for VPN connections.

It's easy to use, and the service is good. If anything goes wrong, their support system is very reliable.

The renewal process for this box is too frequent. We purchased it five years ago, and it's expiring in 2025. So, I feel they expire it too quickly.

In future releases, this solution could have more graphical elements on the dashboard to make it easier to understand. While there are graphics and a good dashboard, there's always room for improvement.

We have been using Sophos XGS for ten years. At that time, it was new. So somebody recommended us to take this. Our service provider recommended it, and that's why we have taken it.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. We have around 300 end users in our organization. 

The customer service and support has been excellent. 

Positive

We have worked with Cisco and Fortinet Firewalls. It's hard to compare.

Installation and understanding are a bit challenging with Cisco, whereas Sophos is easier to install and use.

We have a FortiGate firewall at another location. We recently purchased it.

The initial setup is very, very easy.

The deployment process took me more than two to three hours, including all the checks. I had a backup of the earlier Sophos firewall, so I just restored it and verified everything.

One person for support and checking, so two in total are enough for deployment and maintenance of the solution.

I would definitely advise to use Sophos. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine 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 interface is great.

It's a very easy-to-use product.

The product was easy for us to install. 

The pricing is okay. 

We've had many problems lately. We're having issues with its firmware, now, and we are trying to fix it with the supplier, the Sophos supplier in Turkey. 

It has recently started to suddenly block and crash. We don't know what will happen. We're not sure if it is the device or something else. We're trying to fix the problem with Sophos. 

It's not extremely scalable. 

I've been using the solution for six months. 

I'm not sure what the issue is, however, it has been crashing and we're trying to find a fix or a solution. 

I don't find the solution to be very scalable. 

We have 300 people using it right now. 

We're working with a Sophos supplier in Turkey. When we run into issues, we reach out to them. We're dealing with them right now. 

The installation process was very simple and straightforward. It wasn't overly complex or difficult. For us, the deployment took about two days. 

You only need two people to maintain the product. It's not labor-intensive. 

I'm not sure of the exact amount we paid, however, compared to other firewalls, the pricing isn't too bad. 

I'm a customer and an end-user. 

We bought three devices from Sophos. We're just dealing with some issues with crashing right now.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten. 

Potential new users should clearly investigate other firewall models. They need to be sure of what they pick before they pay for any solution.

We normally use physical appliances for office and virtual appliances for datacenter.

XGS is similar to XG series but adds new Xstream Flow processors that are used to accelerate various functionalities that are normally done in x86 CPU.

Sophos will soon release SFOS v19 software which will utilize Xstream for even more functionalities like IPsec, SSLVPN, SDWAN and etc.

What I found most valuable in Sophos XGS is that it's very easy to manage.

Authentication with Azure AD needs improvement. It would be better if it could work directly without using local AD server. For comparison Fortinet FortiGate allows to use SAML authentication with Azure AD and does not require any local server. It is currently unknown to me, if or when it will be implemented on Sophos.

Local DHCP service also needs improvement. Windows DHCP service offers more functionality and is more flexible and easier to use. SFOS v18.5.3 added DHCP option functionality in the GUI - which previously worked only from CLI. 

I've been working with Sophos XGS since they came out. I cannot remember exactly the year and date, but it hasn't been so long, e.g. just one year.

It is very stable - have not had any issues.

The scalability of Sophos XGS is good. Normally we suggest the clients to use firewall as a service, since it gives more flexibility both for client and us, since usually we manage the client's firewall. There is a virtual version of the firewall which scales even more, since it can be upgraded to a license that offers more RAM and CPU cores. For us, it scales very well, e.g. I'm giving it the maximum score: ten out of ten.

If a client is looking for a new firewall, then we normally need to consider as much information as possible (user count, weight per user, LAN throughput, WAN throughput, functionalities and etc). If a client wants to pick a solution for larger environment, then we also ask recommendation from Sophos to get the most optimal solution.

Positive

The initial setup for Sophos XGS is very easy. From cloud it can be deployed even faster, since it allows to create configuration templates.

The ratio of price and functionality is good.

Licensing cost depends on particular model and required functionality:
- It is possible to use the firewall without any license, but then it will work only as port based firewall.
- Normally we suggest to use at least Standard License.
- Licensing cost for single appliance or active/passive HA cluster is the same - only 1 license.
- Active/Active cluster requires 2 licenses and performance gain is very small. It is better to use more powerful appliance. 

We are Sophos Gold partner and mainly like to use Sophos XGS firewalls.
If it a requirement by client, then we can also offer non-Sophos firewall solutions.

There are multiple models of Sophos XGS that we use, e.g. we use both desktop  and 1U sized models.

Sophos XGS can be fully cloud managed, and it's possible to deploy it directly from the cloud, that you installed the hardware, and maybe I have to use an ESB key, though I'm not sure. We haven't tried deploying it that way yet.

The only difference between Sophos XGS and Sophos XG is the software version that is supported on the hardware. The difference will be when the version 19 software comes up, as it will not work on Sophos XG.

I recommend Sophos XGS to others who are thinking of implementing it. I recommend for them to use it. Sophos firewall can be also used without additional firewall, but we strongly suggest using Standard license, which offers application filtering and IDS/IPS.