Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Sophos XG based on the interviews we conducted with its users.
The top alternative solutions include Fortinet FortiGate, Netgate pfSense, and OPNsense.
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
Sophos Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Sophos, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Fortinet FortiGate offers robust security features with extensive integration and scalability, appealing to buyers needing versatility and comprehensive deployment. In comparison, Sophos XG provides affordable security options, attracting tech buyers with competitive pricing and needs for simpler on-premises solutions.
Fortinet FortiGate has a higher initial setup cost, while Sophos XG offers a more budget-friendly setup option. The key difference lies in the upfront investment required, favoring budget-conscious users with Sophos XG.
Fortinet FortiGate has a higher initial setup cost, while Sophos XG offers a more budget-friendly setup option. The key difference lies in the upfront investment required, favoring budget-conscious users with Sophos XG.
Netgate pfSense appeals to cost-conscious users valuing flexibility and a strong feature set without significant licensing costs. In comparison, Sophos XG offers an integrated security suite with user-friendly management, suitable for enterprises needing comprehensive threat prevention and support despite higher costs.
Netgate pfSense offers more affordable setup costs, whereas Sophos XG incurs higher initial expenses, making Netgate more budget-friendly for new deployments.
Netgate pfSense offers more affordable setup costs, whereas Sophos XG incurs higher initial expenses, making Netgate more budget-friendly for new deployments.
Sophos XG offers comprehensive security features like web filtering and email protection, appealing to those needing integrated management and easy VPN setup. In comparison, OPNsense is ideal for customization and cost-efficiency, benefiting from open-source flexibility and plugin support.
Cisco Secure Firewall's advanced integration and support benefit businesses within the Cisco ecosystem. In comparison, Sophos XG's adaptability and scalability meet diverse needs. Tech buyers may choose Cisco for integration benefits or Sophos for flexible deployment and cost-effectiveness.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a lower setup cost compared to Sophos XG, offering a cost-effective solution without compromising essential features. Sophos XG's higher setup cost is justified by its comprehensive set of included security features.
Cisco Secure Firewall has a lower setup cost compared to Sophos XG, offering a cost-effective solution without compromising essential features. Sophos XG's higher setup cost is justified by its comprehensive set of included security features.
Sophos XG is valued for its user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness, offering robust security features and ease of management. In comparison, Check Point NGFW emphasizes deep packet inspection and advanced threat prevention, catering to those seeking extensive security functionalities despite the higher cost.
Sophos XG provides extensive web filtering, wireless integration, and email protection, ideal for hybrid and on-premises environments. In comparison, Azure Firewall offers scalability and seamless integration within the Azure ecosystem, perfect for cloud-native solutions with flexible pay-as-you-go pricing.
Sophos XG setup costs are extremely competitive, focusing on affordability, while Azure Firewall offers a more comprehensive and robust setup, reflecting its extensive features.
Sophos XG setup costs are extremely competitive, focusing on affordability, while Azure Firewall offers a more comprehensive and robust setup, reflecting its extensive features.
Sophos XG offers synchronized security and extensive integration across endpoints and networks, making it ideal for comprehensive setups. In comparison, WatchGuard Firebox provides simple deployment and cost-effectiveness, appealing to those prioritizing straightforward security management with competitive pricing.
Sophos XG offers a lower setup cost compared to WatchGuard Firebox, which might be an important factor for budget-conscious businesses seeking efficient network protection.
Sophos XG offers a lower setup cost compared to WatchGuard Firebox, which might be an important factor for budget-conscious businesses seeking efficient network protection.
SonicWall TZ is cost-effective initially but has higher long-term subscription costs, appealing to users valuing specific feature selections. In comparison, Sophos XG offers comprehensive features at a competitive price, making it attractive for those seeking economical and bundled security solutions.
SonicWall TZ offers a straightforward setup with lower initial costs, while Sophos XG provides more comprehensive capabilities but requires a higher setup investment. The difference in costs reflects their targeted functionalities and security features.
SonicWall TZ offers a straightforward setup with lower initial costs, while Sophos XG provides more comprehensive capabilities but requires a higher setup investment. The difference in costs reflects their targeted functionalities and security features.
Juniper SRX offers strong routing and deep packet inspection with cloud integration, ideal for complex environments. In comparison, Sophos XG emphasizes ease of use with synchronized security and web protection, appealing to those seeking comprehensive yet user-friendly network security solutions.
Juniper SRX Series Firewall setup costs are moderate, appealing to budget-conscious users, while Sophos XG offers competitive pricing with streamlined deployment.
Juniper SRX Series Firewall setup costs are moderate, appealing to budget-conscious users, while Sophos XG offers competitive pricing with streamlined deployment.
Sophos XG excels in synchronized security and simplified site deployment, appealing to businesses needing seamless integration and application control. In comparison, Fortinet FortiGate-VM offers robust firewall capabilities and SD-WAN, ideal for enterprises focusing on hybrid cloud environments and scalable performance.
Sophos XG has a straightforward setup cost, ideal for businesses seeking streamlined deployment. In contrast, Fortinet FortiGate-VM's installation can be more complex but provides comprehensive features for enterprise-grade deployment.
Sophos XG has a straightforward setup cost, ideal for businesses seeking streamlined deployment. In contrast, Fortinet FortiGate-VM's installation can be more complex but provides comprehensive features for enterprise-grade deployment.
Sophos XG offers advanced features like sandboxing and synchronized security for robust integration. In comparison, Untangle NG Firewall is easy to use with customizable options, appealing for its simplicity, which suits small businesses with its cost-effective open-source model despite fewer advanced capabilities.
Sophos XG often incurs higher setup costs due to its advanced features, whereas Untangle NG Firewall generally offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
Sophos XG often incurs higher setup costs due to its advanced features, whereas Untangle NG Firewall generally offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
Sophos XG provides extensive integrated security features like application filtering and centralized cloud management, appealing to businesses prioritizing advanced security. In comparison, KerioControl offers user-friendly, on-premises deployment with network traffic shaping, ideal for organizations needing straightforward and flexible security management.
Sophos XG setup involves specific initial costs, while KerioControl's setup is characterized by a straightforward pricing structure. The differences in setup costs influence user preference, highlighting Sophos XG's advanced features versus KerioControl's simplicity in cost arrangement.
Sophos XG setup involves specific initial costs, while KerioControl's setup is characterized by a straightforward pricing structure. The differences in setup costs influence user preference, highlighting Sophos XG's advanced features versus KerioControl's simplicity in cost arrangement.
Sophos XG offers extensive features like web filtering, wireless integration, and email protection. In comparison, Sangfor NGAF stands out for its affordability and ease of use. Sophos XG provides robust deployment options, while Sangfor NGAF's competitive pricing attracts budget-conscious buyers.
Sophos XG offers user-friendliness and cost-efficient network security. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series provides strong application filtering and enterprise-scale security. Tech buyers may prefer Sophos XG for its simplicity and value, while others may choose Palo Alto for advanced threat intelligence in cloud environments.
Sophos XG features lower setup costs, making it a budget-friendly choice, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series demands a higher initial investment, highlighting its extensive security capabilities and advanced features.
Sophos XG features lower setup costs, making it a budget-friendly choice, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series demands a higher initial investment, highlighting its extensive security capabilities and advanced features.
Sophos XG excels in flexibility and seamless integration within its ecosystem, appealing to businesses needing comprehensive security features. In comparison, Huawei NGFW offers high-end performance and affordability, suiting those prioritizing cost-efficiency and robust IPSec capabilities.
Forcepoint excels in threat protection and granular control with competitive pricing. In comparison, Sophos XG offers robust cloud integration and advanced security policies, justifying higher costs through comprehensive features and innovative applicability, providing long-term savings and efficient ROI.
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall has a higher setup cost compared to Sophos XG, which offers a more budget-friendly option without compromising basic functionality.
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall has a higher setup cost compared to Sophos XG, which offers a more budget-friendly option without compromising basic functionality.
Barracuda CloudGen Firewall offers scalability and robust SD-WAN, ideal for large deployments and transparency in data handling. In comparison, Sophos XG excels in endpoint integration and provides a user-friendly dashboard, making it suitable for environments needing synchronized security and extensive network visibility.
Barracuda CloudGen Firewall features a higher initial setup cost, while Sophos XG offers more budget-friendly setup pricing. Barracuda is known for complex installations, contrasting with the easier deployment process attributed to Sophos XG.
Barracuda CloudGen Firewall features a higher initial setup cost, while Sophos XG offers more budget-friendly setup pricing. Barracuda is known for complex installations, contrasting with the easier deployment process attributed to Sophos XG.
Sophos XG offers extensive application control and encryption capabilities, appealing to those needing cloud integration and centralized management. In comparison, Hillstone E-Series provides robust hardware with virtual switching and routing, suited for users prioritizing hardware capacity and innovation in network security solutions.
Sophos XG offers a higher setup cost with extensive features, while Hillstone E-Series provides a cost-effective alternative with a simpler setup process, making it ideal for budget-conscious organizations.
Sophos XG offers a higher setup cost with extensive features, while Hillstone E-Series provides a cost-effective alternative with a simpler setup process, making it ideal for budget-conscious organizations.
Sophos XG offers integrated endpoint protection and ease of management through Sophos Central. In comparison, Zscaler Cloud Firewall provides robust cloud-native security without hardware needs. Sophos is ideal for comprehensive on-premises security, while Zscaler suits those needing flexible, broad cloud coverage.
Sophos XG has a lower setup cost compared to Zscaler Cloud Firewall. However, Zscaler Cloud Firewall offers cloud-native deployment benefits that might justify its higher initial expenditure.
Sophos XG has a lower setup cost compared to Zscaler Cloud Firewall. However, Zscaler Cloud Firewall offers cloud-native deployment benefits that might justify its higher initial expenditure.
Sophos XG prioritizes web filtering and ease of deployment, while Palo Alto Networks PA-Series excels in advanced threat prevention. In comparison, XG's competitive pricing attracts small to medium businesses, whereas PA-Series offers robust protection, appealing to those seeking comprehensive threat mitigation.
Sophos XG has a lower setup cost, offering budget-friendly deployment, while Palo Alto Networks PA-Series requires a higher initial investment for its advanced features, creating a cost differentiation evident between the two solutions.
Sophos XG has a lower setup cost, offering budget-friendly deployment, while Palo Alto Networks PA-Series requires a higher initial investment for its advanced features, creating a cost differentiation evident between the two solutions.
Juniper vSRX offers robust virtualization, flexibility, and advanced threat prevention, appealing to tech buyers valuing scalability and long-term ROI. In comparison, Sophos XG excels in ease of management and integration with cloud services, attracting those prioritizing simplicity and cost-effectiveness.
Sophos XG excels in advanced threat protection and integration, making it ideal for tech buyers seeking efficient security. In comparison, Smoothwall Firewall offers superior web filtering, appealing to those prioritizing online safety and content control in educational or sensitive environments.
Sophos XG offers versatile integration and customization, while GajShield Next Generation Firewall focuses on data loss prevention. In comparison, GajShield appeals with cost-effective pricing and efficient management, while Sophos provides robust sandbox protection. Each presents unique advantages for tech buyers based on specific needs.
Sophos XG excels with advanced threat protection and robust detection systems, appealing to those prioritizing security. In comparison, WiJungle provides a unified security solution that integrates multiple services, attracting buyers interested in comprehensive features and cost-efficient consolidation.
Sophos XG often requires a higher initial investment for setup, while WiJungle is generally more economical in terms of setup costs, making it a cost-effective alternative for budget-conscious businesses.
Sophos XG often requires a higher initial investment for setup, while WiJungle is generally more economical in terms of setup costs, making it a cost-effective alternative for budget-conscious businesses.
