We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks 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: Palo Alto Networks comes out on top in this comparison. It is robust, performs well, and has good support. Sophos XG does, however, do better in the Pricing and Ease of Deployment categories.
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It performs very well."
"It is simple to manage, and there are a lot of functionalities in the same box."
"What's most important is the ease of use."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is good to use, and most importantly, the pricing. The customer especially likes the discount when they trade up or something like that."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"We have been able to offer several services to customers in a single box."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"DNS Security is a good feature because, in the real world with web threats, you can block all web threats and bad sites. DNS Security helps to prevent those threats. It's also very helpful with Zero-day attacks because DNS Security blocks all DNS requests before any antivirus would know that such requests contain a virus or a threat to your PC or your network."
"The packet level inspection is the most valuable feature. The traffic restriction features allow us to restrict the sub-features of any platform."
"The Unified Threat Management (UTM) module, which consists of the basic firewall and IPS services, is what the majority of our customers use in Palo Alto Firewall."
"IoT security is most valuable in the current version. Content IDs, DDoS protection, zone protection, and DLP are the most prominent features in Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall. It is easier to configure than other solutions."
"The WildFire reporting and Cortex XDR platform have huge infrastructures in the cloud that secures the network against threats. So, we have the potential on the system, specifically for users, where we take care of this since the user is the most dangerous. We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis, rather than a daily or weekly update like I used to with different AV vendors. These features can detect viruses and malware more quickly, which is super important."
"The most important thing is that it's really user-friendly. I have almost stopped using the CLI because I like the graphical interface. You can do whatever you want on a single screen, including all the configuration and implementation, using Panorama. You don't have to switch from one place to another."
"I like the architecture because it separates the management plan process and the data plan process."
"A feature introduced by Palo Alto with the version 10-OS is embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. Machine learning analyzes the network traffic and detects if there is any usual traffic coming from outside to inside. Because of Palo Alto, organizations detect around 91% of malicious attacks using machine learning. The machine learning helps customers by implementing firewalls in critical and air gap areas so there is no need to integrate with the cloud sandbox."
"We are able to trace any user and pinpoint any vulnerability or any malicious software. We are able to synchronize between the local and active directories so we can catch users easily through their login names and IDs."
"Sophos firewalls are scalable. They are pretty strong in security. So, when they provide any kind of firewall, they provide all the features such as anti-spam, antivirus, etc."
"The features that I have found most valuable are first the Web Filter and the Web Application Firewall SD-Wan on Version 18. Additionally, RED Tunnels allows a Sophos vital to speak to another Sophos vital in headquarters."
"IPS works smoothly."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos XG is the VBM."
"Using Sophos endpoint and the firewall, synchronized security is easy."
"The dashboard is customizable as well. It gives you the feature of including what you need to see as soon as you open the dashboard and to remove the non-necessary stuff, which varies from one organization to the next and from one IT manager to the next. And it has a wide variety of reports as well, template and customizable reports."
"This kind of strategic technology makes it much easier to remove malware and address vulnerabilities quickly."
"I need user-behavior analytics, to find threat scenarios from inside the organization, insider attacks. That would be very helpful for us. In addition, I would like next-generation features for small and medium businesses. These businesses require UTM, all in one product. Fortinet must include it."
"It can be a little bit more user-friendly in terms of policy definition and implementation. It seems a little bit complicated, and it could be simplified."
"Due to its higher cost, Fortinet FortiGate can lead to increased operational expenses."
"It should have a better pricing plan. It is too expensive. It should also have a more granular view of the attack. I don't have FortiAnalyzer, and it is difficult for me to have a complete view when there is an attack on my server."
"I would like to see a more intuitive dashboard."
"My only complaint about FortiGate is a lack of QinQ VLAN tunneling. I haven't found this feature in any Fortinet product. You can do this on all Cisco routers, including the smaller models. However, QinQ isn't available on the biggest, most expensive Fortinet units. They still don't have that. I think now we're on software version 6.0, and they still haven't found a solution for QinQ. It isn't a dealbreaker, but that's my main complaint."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it."
"The only problem that I see with the Palo Alto NGFW being an all-in-one appliance is that because of the different features that are being put into a single appliance, the OS tends to be beefier. Over the eight years, we have seen that the number of features or analyses being put into the appliance itself has a tendency to slow down the appliance, especially at the time of bootup. So, any time we are doing maintenance work, the time required for the appliance to boot up and be fully functional again is significantly longer than eight years ago. They could find a way to make this all-in-one appliance faster."
"I wish that the Palos had better system logging for the hardware itself."
"Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls do not provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities."
"The solution is very expensive. There are cheaper options on the market."
"They could improve their support and pricing and maybe integration. It's a little more expensive that Check Point but the quality is better. Integration with firewall endpoints could be better. Palo Alto does have very good malware or antivirus protection. I think they could improve on that front."
"The pricing could be improved upon."
"Palo Alto has introduced new features in their next-generation firewall, such as SD-WAN. However, the technique of SD-WAN implementation is not easy to understand. It is not easy to deploy at this moment. Maybe, in the future, they can improve the process and how the administrators, partners, or support team can easily deploy this SD-WAN solution on their next-generation firewall. The SD-WAN solution from Fortinet is easy to do. It does not take more than five or 10 minutes. When we talk about Palo Alto, it takes extra effort to implement SD-WAN."
"The initial configuration is complicated to set up."
"I'd like to see better reporting. While the logs are great, the reports are not."
"I would like to have better SSL decryption and HTTP decryption. There should be filtering of SSL and HTTP traffic. Sophos XG consumes a lot of endpoint resources. It consumes a lot of RAM and CPU resources, and they should look into this."
"Sophos XG's web server protection and log viewer could improve. They should also introduce sandboxing."
"I would want the level of integration to have another device on your network that is also reliable."
"The solution’s reporting could be improved."
"Sophos can definitely improve with the interoperability between solutions."
"Their technical support needs improvement. I've been on hold with them for hours waiting for their support."
"When you are using it as a controller for the wireless access points, it doesn't perform well. It is not suitable for the public cloud. It is more suitable for enterprise data. It is not really the equipment for cloud data centers. I am looking for a data center firewall."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 162 reviews while Sophos XG is ranked 7th in Firewalls with 192 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6, while Sophos XG is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos XG writes "Easy to use and deploy with an improved pricing structure in place". Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Netgate pfSense and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Sophos XG is most compared with Netgate pfSense, OPNsense, Sophos XGS, SonicWall TZ and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have both great features and performance. I like that Palo Alto has regular threat signatures and updates. I also appreciate that I can just import addresses and URL objects from the external server. Palo Alto has a dedicated management interface, which makes it easy to manage the device and handle the initial configuration. It has fantastic throughput and its connection speed is pretty fair, even when dealing with a high traffic load. With Palo Alto I can configure and manage with REST API integration. And Palo Alto provides deep visibility into your network activity via Application and Command Control.
Although Palo Alto has great things going for it, there are a few things I dislike about it. For example, when the CPU is 100%, the GUI can take a very long time to respond. Booting time is also time-consuming, and committing the configuration takes more time than I would like it to.
Like Palo Alto, Sophos XG is quick and easy to configure. It is compact in size, and therefore does not weigh a lot either. Similar to Palo Alto as well, it can handle heavy traffic and has a solid performance. A good thing about Sophos XG is that it supports IPsec connection with multiple vendor firewalls. However, I am not impressed with the CLI which is not so useful, and I don’t like that there is no option to import bulk address objects.
Conclusion:
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Sophos XG are both good products. However, Palo Alto has certain features I really like and that’s why I chose it. For me, Palo Alto’s dynamic address group option is a big advantage because it is a huge time saver instead of having to create address groups manually. Another biggie for me was its DNS Sinkhole feature because it is something I rely on a lot and it is very effective in blocking C2 command control traffic.