Sophos XGS Reviews

The primary use case is for cybersecurity strategies. Sophos XGS is used for its strong features like IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) and application control.

Threat intelligence of Sophos benefits by providing site intelligence and integration of AI helps with security.

Sophos offers strong features such as IPS and application control that are particularly valuable.

Some features need remuneration and there are performance improvements required.

I have used the solution for more than a year.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the stability as an eight out of ten.

I consider the scalability to be sufficient.

Support could be improved as they sometimes respond slowly and are not very knowledgeable. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the customer service at an eight.

Positive

The previous product used was FortiGate.

The deployment had some complexities.

I managed the deployment alone with some help.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the pricing of Sophos XGS at an eight out of ten. Cost and pricing of the product were aspects I considered.

Only Fortinet was evaluated.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using Sophos XGS in our organization primarily because it integrates well with Software Central and is good for smaller teams. It requires fewer people to monitor it.

Sophos XGS helps us with diagnosing issues, giving us a breakdown of what the data is actually saying. It has centralized our operations by integrating everything into Software Central.

The most valuable features of Sophos XGS are its integration into Software Central and its threat intelligence capability. Everything integrates into Software Central, making operations very seamless. 

The threat intelligence capability works well; we recently had a penetration test that showed it is performing well. Also, the AI capabilities help us diagnose potential issues and provide a breakdown of what the data is communicating.

A feature that could be improved in Sophos XGS is the ability to perform internal vulnerability checks. This would provide more comprehensive security by checking both external and internal vulnerabilities on the same appliance.

We have been working with Sophos XGS for just over a year.

Sophos XGS is very stable. We only had a couple of minor issues, which were resolved very quickly.

Sophos XGS's scalability is excellent; I would rate it a ten. Adding other sites took very little time and did not cause significant issues.

We are very satisfied with the customer service and support. I would rate the support from Sophos XGS a ten out of ten.

Positive

We used to use a WatchGuard firewall before switching to Sophos. We switched because Sophos offers a centralized platform that integrates everything we need.

The initial setup was handled by a third party, and the handover was very straightforward. Overall, it was straightforward when we got into it.

The implementation was carried out by a third party. The process was smooth and straightforward.

Sophos XGS has done its job effectively so far. We are very satisfied with its performance and ability to meet our security needs.

We paid around 17,000 pounds for a three-year package. The cost is reasonable and comparable to our previous solution.

Before Sophos, we were using WatchGuard, but we switched to Sophos for better integration and centralized management.

I highly recommend Sophos XGS to those considering using it, especially small teams. It's easy to use and integrates all Sophos products, such as endpoints, into one central portal.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use the solution as a VPN and for web filtering. It helps to connect sites to our data center. 

It's a competent solution. 

It's easy to deploy and connect.

The initial setup is not complex. 

We can scale the solution.

It is stable. 

It's reasonably, competitively priced. 

The solution could have a bit more functionality.

We'd like to have a log viewer. We'd like to have visibility to see what traffic has crossed the firewall. 

They need more local support and different language options available for when they need help.

I've used the solution for four or five years. 

The solution is stable, and the performance is pretty good. It's a good platform. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

We have between 2,000 and 2,500 users on the solution right now. 

The solution can scale. 

At this point, we have no plans to increase usage, although we may expand in about two years. 

Technical support has been okay. However, they need more local support. They need to, for example, speak French.

Neutral

We also use Palo Alto. We've used it for about six months. It has more functionality than Sophos. 

The solution is very straightforward and simple. It's not overly complex. 

Originally, when we deployed, we migrated from another platform to Sophos. To do the migration took us two weeks. 

I'd rate the ease of setup a three out of five. 

We do have some maintenance tasks we need to perform after setup. For example, we need to do backups and some configurations. We have an internal team that can handle these tasks in terms of network infrastructure. 

The first time we deployed the solution, we did it via a third party, a partner.

The pricing is good and very competitive. 

The costs depend on what model of Sophos we take. A central firewall on the cloud with a cluster might be 70,000 to 80,000 euros for a three-year license. The price of the license and hardware are all under that pricing. You can integrate other features on top.

I'd rate the solution a four out of five in terms of affordability.

We are using the latest version of the solution. We're customers. 

I'd recommend the solution. It has pretty good functionality and good pricing. It's a good product.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Sophos XGS changes every two years, so we must update our knowledge. We can only test it with real requirements or problems to find scalability and reliability. We can't find these in normal testing. We can see reviews based on Gartner reports, but sometimes, we really feel problems. It can create many issues, even compatibility problems with fiber modules. Only system integrators or installers find these problems.

I think Sophos technical support's immediate response is good compared to Fortinet's. If the technical engineer is good, they get the solution immediately. If not, it might take two days. For improvement, immediate response is required, whether by email, phone call, or WhatsApp. Sometimes, we can't wait three or four days for a solution. In urgent situations, we might use a spare Sophos device while waiting for support.

I recommend what my customer needs and what fulfills their requirements. I suggest products based on price, quality, scalability, and reliability. Customers now ask for specific features at a certain price, not product names. I'm a system integrator and face technical support problems before implementation. I need pre-sales tech reports. If the distributor and support are good, I'll support that product even if the price is high. Urgent deliveries can be a problem if distributors don't cooperate.

I don't blame any product; all are good nowadays. Cisco products have high prices and compatibility issues. Fortinet has easy power replacement, while the tool needs specific adapters. I rate Sophos XGS seven to eight out of ten. Some models are very good, others not so much. It depends on the project, market, price, and features needed.

Nowadays, we have to integrate everything. Most products support this at some level.

We use the solution for the firewall.

The configuration is fantastic, highly efficient, and robust. We don’t have to spend more considering the organization’s size. It's easy to configure what you want to do. The response time is very good. VPN connections have been stable.

The payment plan could be improved.

Sophos XGS comes with mostly eight ports, excluding the five ports. It would be better if they could increase the eight ports to ten. Most times, we don't want to use two. I will need to get another switch if I have five ISPs. Sophos engineer should look into that.

There were issues while switching the firmware to an upgraded version.

I have been using Sophos XGS for five years.

The product is stable.

The solution's scalability is good. It depends on what you have and the advanced structures from purchasing a particular version.

We have 80 users and 30 servers in our organization.

The initial setup is straightforward but a bit complex on production. You will need to configure the IP addresses of each device. We have scheduled downtime to safeguard stakeholder data periodically. We anticipate smooth transitions during these times. However, there may be instances where complexity arises, particularly regarding backups. For instance, when transitioning from firmware version 19.0 to 20.0, you must first downgrade the new device to version 19.04 before restoring the backup. This process requires a good understanding of the techniques involved. While we aim for simplicity, complexities may still arise. The migration takes two hours to complete.

We terminated one cable and continued the conversion using the backup from production. We quickly transferred it and pushed it into the new one. When we noticed it was running, we didn't even remove the whole one. We pushed it to the top and started to unplug the cable, then plugged it in again, repeating the process while waiting for the new box to learn the IP addresses of all the devices.

The solution’s pricing is good.

The first thing to consider is the size of the organization. When evaluating pricing, consider your current needs and what the device offers. You may not need all the features immediately. For smaller enterprises like mortgage institutions and microfinance, we recommend Sophos. It's suitable for them. However, larger organizations can also integrate it, perhaps for specific functions. The configuration, efficiency, and scalability are excellent.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The solution is a layer 7 next-generation firewall, which we use as a firewall and router. We customize rules to help with our security.

We like the layer 7 capability. We have a couple of servers behind the XGS firewall which understands HTTP packets. The solution offers a very accurate setup, and we can use it as a kind of reverse proxy device. Based on the connected URL, we can direct traffic to different servers without a solution.

The solution is very user-friendly, and the GUI is so good that I don't have to use the CLI. This eliminates the need for typing; clicking allows me to get to what I'm looking for.

The application is a little slow; it takes five to ten seconds to respond to every click when configuring. If we need to do significant configuration, it can take a lot of time. This might be because we have a low-end machine, and it could be faster with a high-end one.

We have been working with Sophos XGS for nine months. 

The stability has always been good, we haven't encountered any issues. 

I can't speak much to the scalability as we haven't scaled the tool. I don't think it is scalable the way I have it configured, but there is a high-availability function in the menus. I don't know if the configuration is automatically transferred to new devices.

We have 600 users working behind the solution, and it is very lightweight in terms of maintenance. Sophos provides free web access, so we can go to their website and configure the firewall, which is automatically passed on to the device.

I escalated a question regarding a license issue, and they solved it very quickly, so I rate the tech support highly.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. It has an old-style GUI, so we just followed the steps, and much of the setup was automatic.

We implemented via an in-house team. 

We must purchase separate web server licenses, as they are not included in the regular device license. I would rate the product an eight out of ten in terms of price. It's relatively affordable.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

For personal use, I suggest pfSense, but for business applications, Sophos is great because they have better support and offer an excellent GUI, which makes XGS very easy to operate. pfSense offers console access and is a lot more configurable, which is why I prefer it for home use.

I would advise potential customers to get a free trial license, as it offers the freedom to trial the solution to see if it has the functionality and configuration options required.

Basically, we are using these products for our waste filtering, then application filtering and bandwidth management purpose.

The major benefit is that I can shape my bandwidth, basically. In Bangladesh, we do not have a lot of bandwidth management or bandwidth capacity. We have a limited capacity and we share the many people in this capacity. I can shape my bandwidth using this Sophos file, so everyone gets a minimum level of bandwidth. If the user is higher-end, then getting the lower end and the user has the minimum level or less than 1000 or 500, and they're getting better than that.

Sophos has a feature for user credentials, which means if users are not logging into the capital portal of Sophos, they're not using any internet. We can advertise some products and features using these portals for our university. Basically, I am working at a university, so the university's different features and the different departments are using this portal. If students see this advertisement and then after they log in to the credential in the capital portal and use the internet.

Sophos is good for a mid-level company, not a large-level one. If the user level is very large, Sophos is not capable of handling such a high level of users. It, therefore, needs to improve the devices so that they work in larger organizations and with a large number of users.

When we use the hardware level of the device, the RAM or other storage capacity is fixed. We could not change the memory or other capacity of this device. If we need some improvement in capacity, we get different types of problems. If RAM usage is too high or capacity moves higher, the Sophos device does not work properly.

Sophos has a number of additional features, however, the user graphical interface, the graphical interface when we are using CyberRoam, the user portal, or user interfaces, are so much smarter than Sophos. In Sophos, the user portal is not user-friendly. This needs to change, the UI.

I've worked with the solution for the last four years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the performance at 75%. Some improvements could be made. 

We have 4,000 or 5,000 people that are connected in Sophos.

It is not easily scalable as it has fixed capabilities and that means C2 RAM is fixed. That makes it not easily scalable.

We use the product on a daily basis. 

Sophos' technical support is not good. I have not been getting better support from their technical people. The response time needs to be better.

I am also using the Cisco Firepower model 4110.

The main difference is basically Sophos is not like a Firepower. Sophos we can call by the UTM device management. For security purposes, we are using a Cisco firewall for different types of attacks. For bandwidth management with filtering and other activities, just normal activities, we are using Sophos.

The initial deployment is not complex, however, it's mid-level. You do need some experience. It depends on the device model. If we purchase the higher model, then the price or other investment is also more.

The deployment takes a maximum of one month. We do maintenance on the devices maybe once a year. 

For the deployment process, the partner helped us deploy the devices and three people were working on the deployment.

The initial price is high and we purchased a three-year licensing model. Every three years, after every three years, we need to renew Sophos. Everything is included under the license. 

The pricing is quite low, and we are quite happy with it.

We're a customer and end-user.

We are using the hardware version of the product. It's the latest version. 

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten.

For network security and filtering through our infrastructure, we rely on Sophos Firewall, specifically using Connect Sophos Cloud in our branches. 

Endpoint protection is crucial, so we integrate with DuoSet, and the system allows for VPN connections with various devices like SaaS, Alibaba, Fortinet, and Cisco, supporting encryption detection and more.

It's crucial for our company, as well as other companies and customers. When our customer licenses expire, they request to renew or make changes to their Sophos XGS boxes. This process is significant and managed by our technical team or engineers.

The Sophos XGS product is highly versatile and well-suited for various companies, including small, medium, and large enterprises. Its effectiveness lies in its inspection firewall capabilities, making it a commonly chosen option in our country due to its reasonable pricing. Sophos Firewall's support for VPN encryption and thorough inspection makes it a suitable choice for many companies, and I recommend it accordingly.

At the moment, I can't propose any new features. The primary concern is traffic stability, which needs improvement. Although the traffic stability is generally good, it has been noted that it can impact RAM and CPU, affecting workflow and inspection.

In my view, Sophos operates effectively in a reactive mode, focusing on static detection and forwarding traffic. However, Fortinet takes a more proactive approach, blocking both connection and route connections. While Sophos forwards any connection in both inbound and outbound traffic, I believe this is a positive aspect, especially in a country with various sizing considerations. This is my perspective, emphasizing the significance of Sophos XGS in software work.

I have been using Sophos XGS for two years. 

It's a stable solution. I would rate it around nine. There is room for improvement, especially in terms of support. As I mentioned earlier, when the CPU and memory reach their maximum capacity, the tool forwards traffic. This is a critical aspect—no inspection, no traffic, and no log.

It is a highly scalable solution. I can't provide an exact count because I work with multiple solutions, including Sophos XGS, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. Counting all the users across these platforms is challenging.

Positive

In the last two years, I have worked with Sophos Firewall, and it is an excellent firewall. It's easy to set up with encryption and inspection features. In my view, it's well-suited for all.

The initial setup of Sophos XGS has been quite smooth and user-friendly. Unlike my experience with Fortinet and Palo Alto, which posed challenges, Sophos XGS stands out for its ease of use. End users can handle the setup themselves without requiring an engineer to configure the firewall or register the device.

It's highly effective and well-suited for medium and small companies. The pricing is attractive, and our customers find it suitable for regular license renewals.