Sophos XG Reviews

We use it for network protection. We use Sophos XG as a firewall in our own company, and we have also implemented it for customers. I have been using Sophos XG for a small office for my own family. 

We have also implemented Sophos Email Gateway for government mailing servers. It is not so elaborate, but for basic usage, it works very well.

We have implemented version 17 to the latest version of Sophos XG.

I like it for its simplicity. It is very simple to configure and implement. It is a very good product for medium-sized organizations.

There should be web caching to improve bandwidth utilization. It should have a very good caching feature. That's because we are in a very poor continent, and the connectivity cost is very high. We have low bandwidth, and the intensive usage of bandwidth is not easy here in Africa. If they improve services for web caching, it would be better.

It should also support a feature for Virtual Domains. Similar to FortiGate, we should be able to use a single device to create two or more virtual units. Such a feature is useful for separating the traffic between departments in a large enterprise.

When I try to use Sophos for Email Gateway, it's not easy to check a user in the LDAP directory. It's not as good as other products, such as HCL Domino. Sophos is good, but it is not so good. When we use the LDAP filter to select some users, we have small problems, but overall, Sophos is very good for me.

Their support in Africa is not so good, which is a problem. Their support can be improved.

I have been using Sophos technology for four years.

It is very stable.

Generally, when we implement a Sophos product, we do the sizing and plan the resources based on the expected traffic. We anticipate the resource usage for one or two years, which helps with scalability, but it is a product for medium enterprises. In my company, we have around 20 employees.

Their account manager and support in Africa are not so good. Their community support is very good, and a lot of times, I use their community when I need any kind of support, and I get a response for my issue. 

I use Sophos and Fortinet. I sometimes also use Cisco Firepower. We are an integrator in West Africa, and my choice also depends on a customer's choice. Sometimes, they are telecom operators, and sometimes, they are small companies, such as non-governmental organizations.

It is very easy to implement.

Its price is good. All features are grouped in the same license. It is an all-in-one license, and the license price is acceptable.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We use it for the protection of our network. We also have a product from Sophos for ransomware protection using which we are able to protect our network from ransomware. All of our solutions are from Sophos, and we have everything integrated. 

We can define which systems can be accessed from outside of our company. We can define the connection rules for inside and outside of the company. It is easy to implement or modify rules.

It is very easy to use. You can configure and monitor everything from one unique dashboard. It is also easy to install.

Its price should be improved. It should be cheaper. 

In terms of features, I am happy, and I don't need more features. The firewall is perfect, but the antivirus could be better. It would be useful if the antivirus was less heavy and had better performance.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable. We receive the updates online. They provide the updates at a good frequency. 

It is scalable to a limit. If the size of the network grows, you will have to buy new equipment. If you need just a few more connections, you will able to work with the existing system.

Currently, we have 16 users who are using it. We don't have any plans to increase its usage because our company is in liquidation. If the government decides, we can have more projects, but, as of now, we are in liquidation. We are keeping things working for now, and we plan to keep using this solution, but there are no investments.

We have support from the supplier of our firewall, and if needed, we also get support from the people who develop our software.

It is easy to install. Our company is at three locations. It takes two days to install it at all locations. It takes one day for one location and another day for the other two locations.

For the first installation, we took the help of the supplier. Since then, we do it ourselves. We don't have teams attached directly to the system. We have two or three IT guys who work with this system, but we can have support from the maintenance team.

Currently, we have a contract for three years. It would be good if its price is reduced before we renew the contract. We will buy the equipment if it is cheaper.

I'm happy with what I am getting. I haven't faced any problems. Everything is integrated, and it is easy to install and easy to control. 

I would rate Sophos XG a nine out of ten. I am very satisfied with this solution.

We are resellers.

The SD-WAN feature stands out as the most valuable aspect.

Fortinet surpasses Sophos in terms of support, particularly with its comprehensive five-one feature console. 

Additionally, there are notable differences between appliance models, including variations in hardware, utility, and product offerings. 

It is essential to compare these aspects to ensure optimal performance and functionality. 

While Sophos may not excel in the support aspect, it still provides satisfactory performance overall. 

However, other solutions may offer better support and resource availability.

I have been working with Sophos XG for three years.

Sophos XG is a stable solution.

Sophos appliances typically offer a fixed level of throughput, which means their scalability may be limited compared to more flexible solutions. 

It is important to consider this aspect when implementing Sophos for your organization. 

Technical support is good.

When considering master gold names, it is evident that they offer a competitive package.

I would rate technical support an eight out of ten.

Microsoft's protection has received positive feedback and strong on-site support from both customers and partners. 

Their response to cases, including targeted remediation, has been prompt and efficient. 

In certain instances, there is a reliance on Microsoft's expertise and direct involvement to ensure a satisfactory resolution.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy.

The price is reasonable.

The licensing cost in the final currency amount, is 163,080, with three years of support. 

Support costs are approximately 50 percent.

As for advice on implementing Sophos, it would depend on your specific requirements and the desired features you seek in a security solution.

Evaluating factors such as support, performance, compatibility, and cost-effectiveness is essential when making a decision.

It is recommended to carefully assess your organization's needs and consult with Sophos representatives or IT professionals to determine if Sophos is the right fit for your environment.

It is recommended to carefully assess your organization's needs and consult with Sophos representatives or IT professionals to determine if Sophos is the right fit for your environment.

I would rate Sophos XG an eight out of ten.

I primarily use the solution as a firewall. It's running on our data centers and all of our offices.

It has a simple GUI, which is good. 

The initial setup is pretty simple.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few negatives with them.

Their tech support is not great. 

The features on offer are lacking.

Basically what they don't have is proper bandwidth management for multiple WAN ports and multiple WAN ports to multiple VPN WANs. Meaning, if I have it on both sides on both the main side and on the secondary side, two internet connections, I can't bond the two of them together into a single VPN and have bandwidth managed between the two of them.

If I want to go ahead and make a VPN, right now, I have two internet connections on each side. I have to make a failover a group of four VPNs for it to go ahead and failover between them.

You're getting into a lot of rules. It's a lot of extra rules, et cetera, that has to be done. They don't have simple pointing systems where you could go ahead and make rules saying, "Hey, here's the route". They're not fully route-based VPN rules yet. You literally have to take down all the routes all over the place in order to make updates. It's tedious. 

Basically, we had the problem where we moved certain ranges from one data center to another data center. It took us about an hour of downtime to do that. We had to go ahead and we had to reset VLANs and we had re-setup all the VPNs in all the different places we reconnected. We don't have two sites, we have 25 sites. It was a lot of work.

I've used the solution for about three years at this point. 

It has its bugs and we can't get answers due to the fact that technical support is outsourced. There are some bugs that we keep running into that tech support can't figure out what to do. The bigger problem is the log systems aren't big enough for them to actually capture all the logs that happen.

Technical support is an issue. About six months after we bought it to a year after we bought it, they outsourced all their tech support to India. Literally beforehand, they were an American-based tech support company and they actually had full product knowledge. The Indian-based tech support doesn't have the product knowledge and there was a language barrier. They could speak English, however, they didn't understand us very well.

We were told that they stopped doing outsource and they are rehiring their own internal staff again for tech support. We're hoping that we're going to be able to get better tech support again.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and simple. It's not overly difficult. I don't consider it to be complex. 

We bought it as is. We bought it with four years of support. However, I can't speak to how much it costs. 

I'd advise users considering the solution that, if you have quite a bit of sites, it's going to get a lot of work to do, to fix things up. It makes more sense if you have minimal sites. 

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.

Overall, everything about the solution works well. We haven't had any issues at all.

The features on offer are great. It has pretty much everything we need.

The solution is very user-friendly.

The product is very easy to explore. It has a very good layout.

I need to do a bit more research on the product. I can't think of any features that are missing.

The solution is tied to the US dollar. You need to pay whatever the equivalent is in your own currency, and, if the exchange is bad, it can really add to the cost.

We've been using the solution for three years. It hasn't been an extremely long amount of time.

The stability is great. We don't have any issues. I haven't come across bugs or glitches. There isn't crashing or freezing. It's reliable.

Technical support is quite good. That said, we really haven't had any issues with the product itself.

I used to use Fortinet. That was at a different company, however.

The solution is very straightforward to set up. It's not too complex. Sophos Endpoint is similar in that respect. It's easy to implement.

The pricing is a bit expensive. That is mostly due to the US exchange. If the exchange is bad, it's quite an expensive option for us.

We are Sophos customers. We're just end-users.

We also use Sophos Intercept X and Sophos Endpoint as well.

It's a good option. It's easy to explore and to use. Everything is pretty straightforward, especially if you compare it to other firewalls.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with it in general.

I was a distributor for Sophos XG products and worked with customers seeking network security solutions. In my current company, we previously used Sophos XG products extensively before switching to other options.

Sophos XG offers a robust solution with quota management features that are per IP and per user, which I find to be very effective. The ability to manage everything in one box is a significant advantage, eliminating the need to purchase separate products for email security and other features. The user interface is user-friendly, offering dashboards with widgets that provide speed and status, making configuration easy. Traffic management is facilitated through various configurations and user self-portals. Additionally, Sophos XG makes administrative tasks seamless by allowing easy navigation and configuration.

The technical support could be improved, particularly in terms of response speed, as there were delays when working with their Indian support team.

Traffic management is facilitated through various configurations.

Sophos XG is primarily suitable for SMB and mid-level enterprise categories, but not typically chosen by high-end enterprises in Sri Lanka.

The technical support could be improved, particularly regarding response speed when working with the Indian team.

Neutral

Previously, we used Sophos UTM before transitioning to Sophos XG.

The implementation of Sophos XG is straightforward and easy.

I worked as a distributor and the setup was handled internally or with assistance from vendors.

During my research, I explored products like Fortinet FortiGate and Netgate pfSense.

I rate Sophos XG eight out of ten. While the implementation was straightforward and easy, the technical support could use improvement. I recommend looking into improving the features and security validations to cater to the needs of bigger companies.

The majority of our customers use Sophos XG as a traditional firewall. Some use it for endpoint protection, which is similar to anti-virus.

We also have customers that have SD-WAN as part of their use case. For the most part, it is a firewall, it depends on what the customer environment looks like that would determine how you're going to configure the appliance to work for the customer.

Technology can deliver what you want based on your environment, what you do may differ from what others do.

We have customers from insurance, some oil, and gas, as well as some from the banking sector. Based on the technicality and the peculiarities of the environment, we must explain the technology, of how Fortinet delivers its own firewall, and also others such as Check Point, and Palo Alto deliver their own firewall.

With the explanation given the customer can choose the solution, they want in their environment.

Sophos XG is easy to use.

The only area that requires improvement is scalability.

I understand why scalability is difficult in all firewalls. I understand why it is difficult in our firewalls. If you want to scale, you can scale vertically or horizontally. That is the world of scalability. However, you cannot do so for the firewall. It's a forklift, you have to buy a new appliance.

We have been deploying Sophos XG for our customers for many years.

The stability is based on the environment.

Every firewall solution has a different level of scalability. The majority of firewalls are based on the user. Scalability, in Sophos XG, requires a forklift.

The scalability could be improved.

We have between 12 and 16 customers.

I have never contacted technical support.

We have deployed more Sophos this year than in any previous year.

I have six engineers dedicated to deploying and maintaining the solution.

It is a price-based solution, not based on technology.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Sophos XG an eight out of ten.

We use Sophos XG for ensuring security, implementing web filtering, enforcing policies, and blocking traffic as needed.

I appreciate its interface, but I find that the available ports are insufficient. I've encountered limitations, often finding that three to four ports are not adequate for our needs.

It stands out with its side-to-side VPN and SSL VPN capabilities.

The most significant aspect is the protection it offers.

I encountered an issue while implementing web filtering for users. Specifically, when attempting to access reports detailing which sites users are visiting, the diagnostic report fails to display the complete URLs of the websites visited. This becomes particularly problematic when users utilize proxy software to bypass the firewall, as it renders tracking their website visits nearly impossible. Training presents a major challenge as there are numerous features available, such as IPS and IDS, which many network administrators are unfamiliar with and tend to leave disabled. Users are unable to enable these features themselves due to their lack of understanding of their functionalities and configuration processes. The training manual provided to users lacks proper guidance on configuration procedures. The content outlined in the user manual differs significantly from the live configuration process.

I have been working with it for approximately six years.

There are several glitches in the new firewall. One particular issue arises when applying filtering settings. The firewall fails to unblock sites without requiring a restart to save and execute the changes properly.

We have a multitude of distinct sites, amounting to a total of six to seven thousand users in total.

Our experience with Fortinet was better compared to Sophos. Also, configuring Fortinet is much easier than configuring Sophos.

Installation is not straightforward; it's a bit complex. For instance, when setting up two ISP connections and terminating them on two firewalls, the process involves configuring LAN and WAN interfaces separately, along with DNS and routing configurations in different tabs. Many users may find these functions unfamiliar. It would be more convenient if all functions related to traffic routing were consolidated into a single tab for easier management. Maintenance is also challenging.

The price of Sophos in PTR is significantly higher compared to Fortinet.

Overall, I would rate it three out of ten.