We performed a comparison between FireEye Network Security and Sophos UTM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The most valuable feature is the integration. It's a single console, so we don't have to switch around between multiple products. Another valuable feature is the ease of operations and maintenance."
"Safe attachments, safe links, policies, and the ability to protect from zero-day threats are the most valuable features."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is a stable solution."
"The good part is that you don't have to configure it, which is very convenient."
"Does a thorough job of examining email and URLs for malicious content."
"The solution is very easy to use. All you have to do is to assign the license to the end-user and it's done. The customer will only have the feature activated, and the solution will monitor the emails to determine if they are a threat or not."
"Some of the valuable features on the email side are anti-phishing, anti-malware, and Safe Links."
"It also gives the vulnerability status according to the versions you have selected. Let's say you have Google Chrome. It mentions the versions it has, and it updates. Within two hours of an update, it is reflected in the dashboard. That's really nice to have."
"The solution can scale."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"The server appliance is good."
"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"I also like its logging method. Its logging is very powerful and useful for forensic purposes. You can see the traffic or a specific activity or how something entered your network and where it went."
"What I like about the solution is the ease of use."
"Efficient and effective - it's easy to separate rules."
"With Sophos, we have not had any incidents this year. The security provided has been good. It has proven to be okay for our needs."
"The initial setup was easy."
"The solution is scalable."
"The three most important features for us are web protection, web server protection, and network protection."
"The cost of the solution is very reasonable."
"Sophos UTM provides security for our network here and access through a VPN connection for our remote users. It also offers the flexibility to create different tools for accessibility."
"There needs to be an improvement in integrating the product to work across multiple operating systems, and to have better support for non-Microsoft file types."
"We are always looking for others tools to increase automation on tasks. There can be better integration with other solutions, such as PowerPoint and email."
"In some situations, it has not been able to pick impersonated emails having no attachments. Technical support definitely has a scope for improvement."
"Too many false positives and lacks an accurate capability to detect malicious SharePoint sites."
"In one of the reports I can get the exact place where a vulnerable file resides. But for that, I need to explicitly go into the device and check. If they could include that file part in the report, without my having to go to the device itself, that would help."
"This product's effectiveness could be improved, in terms of detecting unwanted spam or even malware between the emails, compared to other products."
"We need a separate license and we don't know how to get the license that is required."
"I'd like some additional features any product can give me to protect our environment in a better way."
"It is an expensive solution."
"I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"Technical packaging could be improved."
"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."
"They can maybe consider supporting some compliance standards. When we are configuring rules and policies, it can guide whether they are compliant with a particular compliance authority. In addition, if I have configured some rules that have not been used, it should give a report saying that these rules have not been used in the last three months or six months so that I disable or delete those rules."
"FireEye Network Security should have better integration with other vendors' firewalls or proxies, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet. Files that are being submitted should happen through the API or automatically."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The ease of use could be a bit better."
"The integration capabilities could be better."
"The solution needs to do better at covering mobile devices, although they may have an integrated solution for that purpose."
"In Sophos UTM there is always a problem with the routing tables. If you want to see the routing table, you have to use the UI. You can't do it via a web browser. The routing table is better in Fortinet."
"Flexibility in pricing could be improved. It's more rigid in its pricing compared to its competitor: Kaspersky."
"Doesn't provide antivirus for individual computers."
"The initial setup may be difficult for those not familiar with the product."
"Sophos UTM could be simplified, and they can improve on the many other features, like SD-WAN and load balancing. Sophos UTM is missing a few features that their competitors have. For example, if you have multiple branches you would like to connect, the load balancing features aren't available on multilink. If we create a VPM for multiple LAN links, we cannot load balance the traffic."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
FireEye Network Security is ranked 8th in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) with 7 reviews while Sophos UTM is ranked 1st in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 38 reviews. FireEye Network Security is rated 8.8, while Sophos UTM is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of FireEye Network Security writes "A reliable and complete network protection solution that protects from signature-based and signature-less attacks and has powerful logging". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos UTM writes "Great web and email filtering with reasonable pricing". FireEye Network Security is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Check Point SandBlast Network, whereas Sophos UTM is most compared with pfSense, Fortinet FortiGate, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos XG and OPNsense.
We monitor all ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
