Sophos Cyberoam UTM Reviews

We are resellers, so when organizations need UTM devices and network security at the gateway level to secure their networks, we recommend and resell this product. 

Our customers find it economical and offers good security. These two features are key. Ease of installation and implementation are also key factors.

Improvements are mostly needed on the technical side to enhance security and ease of management. 

Additionally, the reporting part could be more user-friendly for troubleshooting and identifying network issues. It should be more easy for a normal user to identify the problem in their network. So, the reporting part has room for improvement.

I've been working with Cyberoam UTM for the past two to three years.

The product is very stable.

I haven't faced scalability issues, so it's a scalable solution. Our customers are mostly small and medium-sized businesses.

There have been some technical issues, but they are mostly related to the technical aspects. Sometimes, our customers need support, and our technical team provides assistance. We also occasionally seek support from Sophos's team online.

While there's always room for improvement, the support is currently good.

Neutral

The initial installation takes about 15 to 20 minutes. However, implementing policies may take longer, depending on the number and type of users. But the basic installation is quick, around 15 to 20 minutes.

For the initial installation, one person is sufficient. However, our team comprises three to four people who handle support and installations.

It's easy to maintain. One person can handle the maintenance, but our team provides support and maintenance services.

It's an economical solution, so pricing is not an issue.

I have worked with solutions like UTM firewalls for network solutions and wireless solutions for campus Wi-Fi. So, solutions related to Wi-Fi and networking.

I would definitely recommend it.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. Overall, it's an excellent product. I only see room for improvement in the reporting part.

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.

The product’s most valuable feature is a centralized dashboard. It can manage firewalls, endpoints, wireless devices, and switches from a single console. We can synchronize old firewalls, antivirus, wireless, and switches.

The product’s pricing has increased by approximately 45% in four months. This particular area needs improvement.

We have an in-house technical support team, including three to four engineers. We reach out to the product’s support team in cases of software- or hardware-related issues.

The product is worth the investment.

The product’s pricing is expensive. It could be reduced. Most customers purchase its three-year license due to cost savings compared to a year license.

I rate Sophos Cyberoam UTM an eight out of ten.

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.

The primary use cases for Sophos Cyberoam UTM in my environment vary depending on client requirements. I have employed it for VPN tunneling, web filtering, and firewall configurations.

The tool's robust features allow for the customization of policies, objects, and firewall settings. 

The product needs to improve its pricing. 

I've been using Sophos Cyberoam UTM since around 2010. 

The product is stable. 

The initial setup of Sophos Cyberoam UTM is straightforward. 

I rate the solution a ten 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. 

Sophos Cyberoam UTM is a security device. You can use it for unified threat management, advanced threat protection, and sandboxing.

I like Sophos Cyberoam UTM as a security component or device for organizations. Performance-wise, it's a satisfactory solution, and it works okay. It also has good features.

What needs improvement in Sophos Cyberoam UTM is openness in the competition among Sophos partners or any other Sophos product.

Another area for improvement in the solution is pricing. It could be cheaper.

I've been working with Sophos Cyberoam UTM since I started the company.

Sophos Cyberoam UTM is a stable solution.

The scalability of Sophos Cyberoam UTM depends on the organization's needs at different points in time.

I've never contacted the technical support for Sophos Cyberoam UTM because I have twenty-five years of experience with user solutions.

There wouldn't be an issue deploying Sophos Cyberoam UTM or any other UTM device for technical people because the basic concept remains the same for all vendors.

Sophos Cyberoam UTM needs cheaper pricing.

I have an IT company where I provide end-to-end IT infrastructure from servers to security products, firewalls to UTMs, including WiFi solutions.

I've provided Sophos Cyberoam UTM to a couple of customers.

I'm a technical solutions provider, and my team deploys solutions for customers.

Sophos Cyberoam UTM can be deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

I'd recommend Sophos Cyberoam UTM, but it would depend on the customer's requirements. The best product I recommend depends on the market report and how the customer interaction or experience evolved with a particular product. Still, Sophos Cyberoam UTM is a product I'd recommend.

My rating for Sophos Cyberoam UTM is six out of ten.