Sophos XGS is deployed as a gateway firewall with VPN in our network environment, excluding the web server feature and the email filtration feature.

Sophos XGS has been helping us manage the threats specific to our industry, although we have yet to fully utilize its AI capabilities. Its deployment has been pretty good, enhancing the clarity of filtration systems and reducing security costs.

The only filtration works quite nicely. Sophos XGS has been really better, providing clearer filtrations than its predecessor. It is extremely easy to deploy and fast to learn.

The interface is really showing up on the edge now. It needs to be more modern and faster, with more rules visible on a single screen for better details rather than just six rules. The threat detection system could be more GUI-based or provide templates for common threats. We also need more updated version 20 study materials.

We have been using Sophos XGS for close to one year. We started shifting from XG to XGS almost a year ago, and now all our systems have been changed to XGS. XG was used for the previous six years.

Sophos XGS has worked well in terms of stability, with no significant issues reported.

The customer service and support from Sophos have been quite good, with timely and effective responses. Although we rarely need support, when required, it has been prompt.

We previously worked with SonicWall but switched to Sophos because it was found to be pretty fast. We also briefly considered Palo Alto, which offered great machine and filter systems but had concerns with the support in India at that time.

The initial setup was straightforward and not problematic, as we could deploy it by ourselves without needing external support.

We usually go for three-year subscriptions. For the data center, we deployed units in dual mode and failover mode, which involved significant costs estimated at six lakh rupees.

We evaluated Palo Alto but ultimately chose Sophos due to concerns about Palo Alto's support in India. However, Palo Alto XGS has improved in terms of security and support.

The antivirus aspect of Sophos needs improvement as the current solutions don't complete the job adequately in today's market. There should be templates to address repeated attack modes, saving time instead of relying heavily on detailed engineer setups.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Sophos XG firewall primarily for threat management, including firewall and endpoint equipment protection. We are in the process of upgrading to Sophos XG 33 firewall.

Sophos has greatly improved our network's security posture. In terms of network security and user activity reporting, it has helped us to manage and analyze the activities of the users. From the reporting, we can now see areas where we need improvements, such as blocking certain sites from users.

The most valuable features are its protection capabilities like threat prevention, malware security, web protection, and web security. The security features are very good.

There should be a workaround in case of equipment breakdown, like a stopgap measure while the equipment is being returned or replaced. An improvement in the product's pricing would also be beneficial so that more people can afford it.

We have been using Sophos XG since 2018.

Sophos' technical support is very prompt and efficient. For instance, when our equipment failed to reboot, their team was quick to diagnose and resolve the problem by exchanging the equipment within two weeks.

We used another firewall before Sophos.

Having a Unified Threat Management system like Sophos XG has helped us spend less on network security, thus providing a good return on investment by managing our income effectively.

The price is reasonable, but if reduced, it could become accessible to more people. Currently, it costs about four million shillings in Kenya.

Before using Sophos, we used another firewall.

Regular prompts from Sophos to the users for instant reporting of any challenges would be very beneficial. Including more YouTube videos, webinars, and other educational content would also help users understand and utilize the product more effectively.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Actually, we are using Tekton for creating CI/CD pipelines for building and deploying applications to different environments.

It helped a lot in terms of automation. We sometimes use Tekton for purposes like sending emails, running batch jobs, and similar tasks.

The valuable features include cloud-native integration, which makes it highly available and efficient in modern containerized environments. Another feature is the modular pipeline that allows reusing CI/CD manifests for different purposes. This modularity helps in reducing redundancy and maintaining a streamlined process.

One area of improvement is the lack of cross-cluster capability, meaning you need different sets of tasks and pipelines for each Kubernetes cluster. Tekton also has an unstable API with frequent changes, making it challenging to maintain consistency across versions. Additionally, there's a need for a better dashboard and built-in authentication mechanisms.

It's about one and a half years we have been working with Tekton.

Tekton is quite stable when used in a well-established Kubernetes cluster. The stability largely depends on the stability of the Kubernetes environment itself, which is designed for high availability.

Tekton's scalability is one of its most advanced features. Since it uses the underlying Kubernetes infrastructure, it can scale easily if the Kubernetes cluster is sufficiently large. I would rate it eight out of ten for scalability.

We primarily used community resources like Stack Overflow for addressing our issues and did not directly contact Tekton's customer service.

In my previous company, we used GitLab and Jenkins for creating CICD pipelines. Currently, Tekton is the primary tool we are using, with Jenkins as a backup solution if Tekton encounters any issues.

The initial setup was manageable but required extensive reading and understanding of documentation. If the Kubernetes cluster is already in place, the setup can be completed in less than ten minutes.

The deployment of Tekton was done in-house with a team of six to seven people handling deployment, creating CI/CD pipelines, and maintaining the solution.

Tekton is an open-source tool, meaning there are no setup costs associated with it. I would rate the cost at one, indicating it is free to use.

In my previous company, we used GitLab and Jenkins for similar purposes.

My advice is to avoid using Tekton if possible due to its complex setup and lack of user-friendly features like a comprehensive dashboard and built-in authentication mechanisms.

I'd rate the solution eight 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.

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 can recommend Sophos XGS for industrial software companies, small businesses at the entry-level, as well as enterprise companies. We offer it for a range of customers, from entry-level to high-end.

The reporting in XGS is a major benefit for us. In other platforms, we can't get reports for one or two months. Secondly, it's very easy to handle and understand, and the deployment process helps enhance our skill set.

The integration with Azure SSO and IPsec is also great. I like the remote access feature, and I would like to see IPS included as well, where we get more detailed reports and can identify and block issues from a single source.

There are a lot more features I haven't explored yet. We just implemented it based on our colleagues' recommendations and are currently working through the support checklist.

Migration and support processes are improving. Even people new to Sophos are finding it easier to manage now.

A lot of training is required. When I train our engineers, they aren’t able to get sufficient training from Sophos-hosted sessions. We only find textbooks and some videos on Sophos portal.

More live sessions or time-bound training would help us understand how to pitch the firewall or use specific features, like advanced photo settings or integration with SD-WAN.

We need to know which feature is suited to different environments. Right now, that knowledge gap makes us more dependent on OEM support, which could be reduced by up to 40% if more training was available.

For me, reporting is a major area for improvement. Detailed reports help pinpoint issues like usage bottlenecks or abnormal activities, allowing us to fine-tune the firewall. IPS in XGS is great because it provides timely attack reports we can present to management. Integration with Active Directory could also be better. Sophos Central integration is good, but the firewall’s performance is slow when accessed through Sophos Central. Our clients also experience slow access when using their credentials. That’s a bottleneck I’d like to see resolved.

I have been using it for the last three years.

The customer service and support have been very good. It's much better now than it was a year ago. Back then, responses were slower, but now their technical support is good. However, RMAs (Return Merchandise Authorization) can still take a while. For instance, recently it took two days to analyze a faulty box.

Maybe it was due to the weekend, but after I raised the request on a Friday, the replacement box only arrived by Thursday. This caused a delay, and we didn't have any alternatives for providing Internet services to our clients during that period. It takes longer with XGS devices. So, I would deduct points for the delays in RMA and pricing.

Along with XGS, we push antivirus with laptop encryption, and also Sophos Intercept X for endpoint protection. We push all these products, along with the red devices (hardware appliances).

We're not pushing Sophos MDR because of the pricing. Clients aren't accepting it because competitors offer lower prices, and clients don't fully understand the additional features of MDR.

For endpoint protection, I only push Sophos antivirus with all the compliance features, like web filtering, data encryption for laptops, and protection for remote users. For MDR, we focus on larger companies.

We deal with corporate offices. For those types of clients, we push for MDR/XDR. However, they are also checking out other features and platforms because we've had some large opportunities.

Compared to other products [like Fortigate, SonicWall and Palo Alto], Sophos's pricing is a little higher.

The second thing is that support is very good, but we're having more issues getting pricing for the Sophos device on time from our vendors. Whenever we request pricing, we simply drop an email.

We create comparison sheets for Sophos XGS when pitching to our clients. We highlight the benchmarks and advanced features, like reporting, that aren't available in other products. We emphasize the value of the bundle that comes with the firewall role. This is a major factor in convincing clients to choose Sophos XGS. The reporting capabilities and overall features are good.

I would recommend using Sophos. We push Sophos to most of our clients. Almost 99% of them use it. Only a few clients prefer FortiGate due to company policies, and some use Check Point, but we mostly recommend Sophos XGS.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

When compared to older versions, after the 2021 update, there have been significant improvements. Routing has become easier, and integration with third-party platforms like Azure and IPsec is seamless. Creating policies for different VLAN compliance requirements is also simpler, and the flexibility now is much better than earlier versions.

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 to control the network and for web browsing. It provides threat protection.

It increases productivity in our company. Everything is protected.

Deployment could be easier.

I have been using Sophos XGS for three years.

I have the company we bought from Cisco, which provides technical support. If anything goes wrong, we call them for any help and support.

With Cisco, You have to buy everything separately and request many options. It's preferable to get a full bundle like Sophos offers. Sophos includes everything in one package, and any additional features are less expensive than Cisco.

It is 20% more expensive than Sophos.

The initial setup is difficult. You need to take a course to learn how to deploy Sophos. With training and hands-on experience, it’s manageable now, but setting up Sophos for the first time was time-consuming. Deploying the security and configuring the network took a lot of effort initially, but the process becomes much easier once that's done.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the product for traffic and security control.

We currently have multiple clients, and many users are working remotely. We need antivirus protection to guard against malware introduced from public networks. One of the most beneficial features of Sophos XG is its integration with Sophos Central. If any file is detected as malicious on any endpoint or firewall, Sophos Central immediately identifies the threat and publishes the information across all endpoints and firewalls. If a single system gets infected, the threat is communicated and addressed across the entire network, including all sites and remote users.

One drawback I've noticed with Sophos XG is that sometimes, the platform can become unresponsive. I've observed that it occasionally hangs, causing traffic to get stuck. During these times, users cannot access the internet or any services routed through the Sophos Firewall. This issue happens randomly and isn't something we've encountered with other firewalls like FortiGate, which we used in the past.

Dealing with licensing has been a big challenge for us. Despite our efforts to resolve issues through our sales contact, we've faced limitations. After confirming our purchase orders, we had to escalate the issue. We were ready to extend our licenses for two or three months.

I have been working with the product for a year.

We haven't seen any major issues with customer support from Sophos. We have faced some problems, but we understand that the support team can sometimes be unresponsive.

When comparing FortiGate to Sophos XG, I would say that if I'm working on large-scale asset monitoring and security purposes, especially if I have a data center that requires firewall security, then FortiGate would be my choice. It's faster and more responsive than Sophos XG support.

The tool's deployment takes two to three hours to complete. It doesn't require any maintenance. You would need one engineer to handle one application.

I can say there has been some return on investment. It's good, but I would still say it's higher by about 10-15 percent compared to other market products with similar configurations.

The tool's pricing and licensing are very complex. As a developing company, we need approvals from management to make a purchase, which can take time. We asked Sophos XG to renew our current firewall license for one or two months while we plan to accommodate our increasing IT assets.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.