Sophos Cyberoam UTM Reviews

The solution's web filtering is an important feature for us in our company. We  use it for VPN connections and routing.

I would like to see improvements in the development of reports. The process needs to be made simple. So, reporting needs improvement.

I have been working with Sophos Cyberoam UTM for about ten years. Also, my customers are using this product. My company is a reseller of the solution.

Sophos Cyberoam UTM is a stable solution.

Sophos Cyberoam UTM is a scalable solution. So, scalability and stability of a solution are two important factors for us in our company.

The solution's local technical support service is good. So, we don't need any other support.

I have experience with Sophos SG.

The initial setup for Sophos Cyberoam UTM was simple for me.

The solution's pricing is good since it is neither too high nor too low. The price is good for our company and customers. So, we have no problems with its pricing.

Considering the solution's interface, I can say that the product is easy to use. Also, the solution is compatible with other products. Moreover, it is easy to integrate it with other solutions. Overall, I rate this product a nine out of ten.

We used it for the POC so we tried it. We used it continuously for testing purposes for four to five months.

I find Sophos very good. What I like about it is that users can make hotspots in Mac and Windows systems through this solution.

I also like the feature of being able to block off Mac IDs that host users. For example, you have a Mac or Windows laptop and you created a hotspot. Other devices like mobiles and tablets e.g. iPads connected to that hotspot. We can block those devices that are connected to the hotspot we created, only through Sophos.

It's a good feature we didn't find in other UTMs.

The product had a hang issue. We needed to reboot, recreate the image, and reconfigure the previous image because the product hanged frequently.

Being able to block applications and services could also be a product improvement.

We used this solution for four to five months.

The stability of this product is very good.

I find the scalability of this product very good.

Our experience with technical support is not good. I didn't understand if there was an issue with the physical device, or if it was a technical issue, or if it was their technical support. If our issues were properly managed, for sure we will purchase again, but we did not purchase because technical support is not good. They're not supportive as well.

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward.

We deployed it both in-house and through the vendor team.

In my team, I am capable of implementing Sophos. I tried implementing it with the vendor team who didn't have much of an idea and also saw that we weren't getting enough support from the Sophos technical team.

Suppose we have two side-to-side VPNs and we're using cloud servers. For example, my requirement is one public IP. If I go in any server part in the cloud, then I want one IP for sending data, while the other IP would be used for receiving data.

Sophos technical support couldn't help. Suppose we are already configured things on our Cisco router. They had no idea how to move the Cisco device configuration in Sophos. That was a big concern.

We deployed it physically via hardware, particularly the router, and not via cloud.

I evaluated Cisco Meraki.

We got was the PUC part only. We are not using it right now. We are currently using ASA.

The product often had hang issues which was why we stopped using it. We will purchase again if there were no hardware issues.

The pricing for this product is good. Though its quality may not be that good, its pricing is very low, enticing small businesses to purchase it over its competitors.

I'm giving it a rating of eight out of ten because the product is really good, but you need to prepare the team, including the team handling the vendors because there are too many devices in the market. Everyone in the team needs to know how to move these things in Sophos devices, or in Sophos cloud-based technologies and application software.

We are using Sophos Cyberoam UTM for network protection.

There are plenty of features available, such as Full Guard and WAN. 

The solution is at its end of life and some of the appliances are finishing.

I have been using this solution for approximately 15 years.

The solution is stable, we have not had any bugs or issues.

The solution is good for medium-sized businesses.

I have used many other network protection solutions, such as Fortinet.

I rate Sophos Cyberoam UTM an eight out of ten.

The solution had a feature to import users from a CSV file. However, the latest version does not have that option. 

The tool is stable. 

Sophos Cyberoam UTM is scalable. 

The tool's technical support is good. 

Positive

Sophos Cyberoam UTM's setup is easy and takes around two to three days to complete. 

Sophos Cyberoam UTM has many price schemes. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. You need to enable security features and rules with the firewall. 

We are using Cyberoam UTM as our centralized gateway and it is useful for web filtering, application filtering, anti-spam, and IPS.

The most valuable features are the IPS and anti-spam functionality. The application filter is also very good.

The interface is user-friendly.

Web filtering capability that allows the blocking of web sites needs to be implemented.

We have had some issues with technical support, which is an area that needs improvement.

Support for cloud security sandboxing would be a helpful addition to this product.

I have worked with Sophos Cyberoam UTM for about 10 years.

Cyberoam is mostly stable but sometimes there are bugs. During such periods, we have resolved the issues by either rolling back firmware or updating.

Overall, it is a good experience in terms of stability and performance.

We have not had the requirement to scale because it has been more than enough for us. We have about 300 users and have not had any issues in terms of performance.

The speed of response from technical support is very good. However, the solution that they gave us was not working afterward. We implemented the solution and did not get the desired result.

We did not use another similar product prior to Cyberoam.

It is very easy to implement and configure.

Our in-house team was responsible for the deployment.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

This product is going to be at the end of life this year, so we are going to be looking at other devices and other vendors. The best product that we have tested so far is from Fortinet. My second choice would be Sophos UTM.

My advice is that if Cyberoam continues in the future then it is a product I recommend. However, my understanding is that the product will no longer be available next year.

For people who want to migrate from Cyberoam, the best option that we have seen so far is from Fortinet.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

UTM is a full content management. Content blocking, URL blocking, etc. We also use it to manage video and streaming media for the subscriber. So it's for internet usage, basically.

Before, I was using TMG, and it was very difficult, back in 2010. A lot of things, like HTTP filtering and HTTPS filtering, were a problem for me at the time. If someone asked me to block YouTube for example, I was able to do so in TMG but when it came to HTTPS, I was having some problems. So this is one issue we have resolved.

The second issue, before the firewall, was we only published our required port on the internet.

Third, email filtering. Before, because we were using Go Daddy services, just normal services for email, we had everything coming in. Now, we also filter emails. 

For me, the most important thing is content management and, obviously, the firewall because we have some servers.

We have different levels of users. Some users, we are just giving them email access. For some users, working sites only. For some users, we are giving them intermediate access so they can access, on the government side, some knowledge bases. For some users, we are giving full access.

So there are two major features for me. One is content management and the second thing is servers, publishing.

They have some issues with email filtering. Sometimes, I have found emails that have passed through the firewall, so I contacted Cyberoam. They said, "Okay, we are going to update the signature in the next update you, you will not get it like this again."

It's stable.

Yes, it can handle growth.

I have called them many times. On a scale of one to five, I would rate them four.

I rate them four because lot of times they don't resolve issues. They are just saying, "Okay send the signature, we will update it." Most of the time they are not giving me the solutions. After three or four conversations, they come to understand it is not available and they say they will update it.

We were using TMG, previously. As I mentioned, we were not able to filter email. The second thing was content management. Sometimes we have to block HTTPS. We have to inspect a URL with HTTPS. In TMG, it was problematic because we needed the certificate and other things.

Also, at the time I was publishing servers' URLs. We have some internal services for our users. TMG was handling it, but it was an old tool in 2010. There were no updates. 

I chose Cyberoam, because, at the time we had a problem with the budget. I had a minimal budget and it fit my budget.

If someone knows how firewalls work, they can easily manage it. I don't think it's complex.

I checked Fortinet but it was a little expensive at that time for me. We also looked at Cisco but it was expensive. So at that time the two products we compared, because they were easily available in our area, were Fortinet and Cyberoam. And Cyberoam was cheaper at that time.

For a small business, it's okay. It's easy to set up and it's also cheap.

I rate it eight out of 10. I'm not giving a 10 because many times, I have problems with the email filtering. Emails pass through without any filtering affecting them. When I get back to them and tell them this is the issue, they check everything and say it is not in their database signature and they have to update it. But you know, by that time, my user has already opened it. 

I don't know why they are not updating. Every time, it seems they are waiting for me to inform them that this is the signature issue or this is the signature that came in through that filter.

We primarily use the solution for operating system security.

The geofencing and report blocking are the solution's most valuable aspects.

The solution is quite stable. The performance has been good overall.

The product is at its end-of-life. There is nothing to improve as it will be discontinued.

With technology such a Sophos, Palo Alto, and Fortinet there has always been a lot of online documentation, which Cyberoam always lacked.

We started using the solution in 2016 or 2017. It's been a few years.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good overall. We find it reliable.

I haven't worked on scaling the solution, and therefore can't speak from personal experience on how well it would expand or how easy it would be. Our company is not in the process of expanding it out, either.

We have about 100 user on the solution currently.

The technical support was always good, however, it was never as good as the technical support offered by Sophos. They could have been more helpful and responsive. They could have been better at sharing information. However, it doesn't matter anymore, as we are moving on to Sophos.

We are now moving over to Sophos, as this solution is obsolete.

The initial setup is not complex. It's quite straightforward. A company wouldn't typically have any issues rolling it out.

I cannot recall how long our deployment took, exactly. It's been a few years since the process happened.

We did not require assistance from outside contractors when we did our initial implementation. We handled it in-house. We did not hire consultants or integrators.

The solution wasn't overly expensive. If you are covering your company from security risk, it's often worth the cost. Security solutions aren't something you want to cheap out on.

We're typically using the latest version of the solution. We update our policies every three years and continue to update them. 

The product is obsolete and we have moved over to Sophos.

Generally, I would tend to recommend Sophos XE to users.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use Cyberoam UTM as a firewall. 

I like the SSL VPN connection. Cyberoam works well for controlling users and authenticating their connection to the internet. 

I have used Cyberoam UTM for about five years. 

We haven't had any issues with Cyberoam so far. 

I rate Cyberoam UTM eight out of 10 for scalability. 

I rate Cyberoam support nine out of 10. We rely mostly on consultants for support. 

Positive

The setup is a bit complex, so we needed help from a consultant. It took us about two months to configure the security policies and ensure everything was in alignment.