We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and Sophos XG based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Sophos XG received better user ratings. Although the two solutions are comparable in most areas, Meraki MX lacks a lot of features in comparison with Sophos XG.
"Fortinet FortiGate is scalable for our users. Right now, we have almost 70 users. We do not have any plan to increase our usage of FortiGate. For maintaining the firewall solution, one staff member is enough."
"It is a good source for firewall protection."
"We've found the solution to be pretty stable."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"Fortigate's most valuable feature is that it doesn't need a push policy when writing rules."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is security. They are known for efficiency and are on the top of Gartner Quadrant reviews. Fortinet FortiGate has an easy-to-use platform with a good graphical interface. The configuration is simple and the solution provides an overall good layer of security."
"It's an easy solution to set up."
"I like how we can achieve total integration."
"I am happy with the technical support for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten."
"Easy to administer and saves time when you have many smaller locations that you have to manage."
"It is very fast to implement."
"We switched to Meraki because it lets you see what's happening in your LAN and WAN in a graphic and web environment."
"The most valuable feature of Meraki MX is I can manage the solution from anywhere remotely, I can throttle bandwidth, and create all rules. Additionally, it is secure for our customers."
"It is very easy to use and manage. It is also very easy to scale."
"It is a robust SD-WAN solution."
"It is easy to manage, which is one of the most important things for us. It is also flexible, stable, and scalable."
"One of the most valuable features is the VPN."
"Orchestration of the firewall is the most valuable feature. It is a fast and agile solution. It is good with protection. It is also very easy to deploy and manage, and its user interface is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature, according to the setup we have at our work place here, is the flexibility of the system or the firmware that's running the appliance. It's so flexible, performing multiple rules with different configurations. According to the set up here, we need to implement several firewalls with different access levels, because we have a variety of users. For this requirement, it's very flexible and very easy to use."
"We've deployed quite a number for our users and our customers, and the feedback is quite positive in terms of management and also administration."
"The interface is very user-friendly and it's easy to manage."
"The most valuable feature is the intrusion prevention system."
"The most valuable features are the reporting, dashboards, and graphical user interface. It gives a good overall picture of what is happening over the network."
"The most valuable feature is the central dashboard"
"The solution needs to improve its integration with cybersecurity."
"In some cases, its initial setup could be hard for customers."
"There aren't really any negative aspects to discuss."
"From a reporting perspective, there's room for improvement. They're providing FortiAnalyzer through which one can get some enhancements, but the visibility and reporting still need slight improvement."
"Some of the web policy reports could be improved."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having a frequent ask questions(FAQ) area for people to receive quick answers to popular questions. Additionally, it would be beneficial to have an SMS notification feature. For example, if you cannot access your email you could receive an SMS message."
"Stability and technical support are the two major issues I have found with Fortinet."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"Meraki tech support staff have a lot more visibility into your network than you do, which is frustrating at times. I understand the approach is to keep the dashboard easier to understand. This will frustrate more advanced users at times."
"It can be hard to get a hold of the solution’s technical support team."
"It is very expensive."
"Pricing is an area where the solution lacks since it is an expensive tool."
"An area for improvement in Meraki MX is that it needs some provision, as supplying the unit through Cisco can be tedious at times, but as far as the product itself and its offerings, Meraki MX is five-star all the way."
"We do not have account managers in our region for the solution. Some governments don't use the product since it is attached to the internet."
"Expensive licensing and firewall stops immediately working if the license is not renewed at expiration date."
"The only stability issue is in Content Filtering. Sometimes we need to report these types of issues to Cisco support."
"The solution’s reporting could be improved."
"We are having challenges when using Zoom with Sophos XG deployed."
"The MTR feature needs enhancing."
"Sophos XG could improve Data Loss Prevention(DLP)."
"The UI needs improvement because it can be a little weird at times."
"The initial setup is not straightforward."
"They can simplify its interface so that it is mostly drag-and-drop. There was an SQL injection attack on some Sophos devices. They just need to harden their devices a little bit so that they can't be hacked very easily."
"I do prefer when updates come out a bit quicker."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 58 reviews while Sophos XG is ranked 7th in Firewalls with 192 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Sophos XG is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos XG writes "Easy to use and deploy with an improved pricing structure in place". Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, SonicWall TZ, Netgate pfSense and SonicWall NSa, whereas Sophos XG is most compared with Netgate pfSense, OPNsense, Sophos XGS, SonicWall TZ and Sophos UTM. See our Meraki MX vs. Sophos XG report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
Meraki is designed for zero deployments and no in-house firewall specialist personnel. Best to secure Networks like remote offices, branches or home offices. Also to protect Internet Access (your computer accesses the internet).
Sophos is more of a professional firewall, not only protecting internet access but also providing security for publishing services like web servers, data centers, central services. They will need a specialist to install and support them. Therefore offer much more sophisticated protection features.
So, you can't really compare these solutions as they are targeting different markets.
Meraki MX is a small business product and lacks a lot of features compared to Sophos XG/XGS.
- IPsec IKEv2 does not work (it is in the menu, but does not work and can only be enabled by meraki support)
- no SSLVPN or IPsec VPN client. AnyConnect can only be tested with beta firmware.
Cisco Client VPN (L2TP) is a total joke - not sure for who it is meant for?
- no user based firewall rules (for VPN)
- no firewall rule grouping
- no masquerade option for DNAT (sometimes it is very useful if I can do a DNAT with masquerade to another subnet)
- no VLAN tagging support on WAN port (would be usable for IPTV - solvable if WAN is bypassed through a managed switch)
- no multiple IP support on WAN port (Sophos has alias support on every interface, which means that multiple IP addresses can be added on the same LAN or WAN port)
- no LAG or LACP support (would be usable to connect aggregation switch to firewall to bypass more traffic through the MX)
- no DAC cable support for SFP port (why I do have to use optical cable to connect aswitch?)
- no custom IPS policies - only on/off button
- no e-mail protection option (Sophos has it with extra license)
- no web server protection (Sophos has it with extra license)
- no sandstorm option (most firewalls have it with extra license)
- hardware may probably too weak compared to the user count
- no BGP, OSPF routing
- no multiple VPN user groups and LDAP servers
Cisco mx64, for example, has 2 WANs, is very practical and simple for the two services, has a balancing for two internet services and bandwidth control (by groups and users).