We work with the entire portfolio of Sophos as we are a Sophos partner. We always wish to sell Sophos's entire portfolio to the client.

The features that I find most effective in enhancing network security include EDR and XDR.

Sophos needs to do a lot of roadshows to attract enterprise customers. Their marketing strategy is quite low, and they need to enhance engagement with partners. There's room for improvement in their response time for technical support.

It's been almost four years.

Technical support is good enough. That said, since the changeover of their ERP system, they are facing problems, and the partners are also facing problems in the portal. The response time should be improved.

We are dealing with other vendors like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point. When the client uptake is known for Sophos, then we try to pitch Fortinet.

When it comes to email security and endpoint securities, Sophos pricing is higher than other vendors when compared competitively. For firewalls, to some extent, it is okay. People don't consider Sophos as an enterprise product; they consider it as an SME product.

I recommend Sophos Next. Js to others. But when people don't consider Sophos as an enterprise product, we try to pitch Fortinet.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Sophos XGS is a unified threat management solution that combines features such as routing, access management, firewall, threat management, and URL filtering for sandboxing. It serves as a security appliance with multiple capabilities.

The valuable features of Sophos XGS include network protection, web protection, application control, intrusion detection, and iCentral orchestration. These features are beneficial for the product's security posture.

The solution could improve by using fewer hardware resources compared to other products like Palo Alto, which has better performance.

Additionally, better integration of AI and machine learning for predictive analysis of potential threats could be beneficial.

The technical support also needs improvement, including a better ticketing system and faster response times.

I have been using Sophos XGS firewall for more than 15 years, with approximately twelve years of precise usage.

I would rate the stability of Sophos XGS as a six out of ten. There have been observations of downtimes compared to other devices, and it doesn't perform as well as competitors like Palo Alto or Check Point.

Sophos XGS has scalability issues as it doesn't have features like cascading. Instead, it requires new devices to scale, unlike Palo Alto which allows adding devices to a pool.

The technical support is quite poor and needs significant improvements in response time and quality, especially for medium and small enterprises. It seems other brands face similar issues, but the costs rise for premium support, which is challenging for smaller entities.

The initial setup of Sophos XGS is simple compared to other firewalls.

The pricing for Sophos products is considered high. The pricing model needs to be more flexible, catering differently to sectors like education, which might not require as high a price point.

I can recommend Sophos XGS for small to medium companies and the education sector. It is less ideal for enterprises with very high-security needs. Organizations with sensitive data should consider alternatives like Palo Alto or Fortinet.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.

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 give both endpoint and firewall together.

We have a set of customers who understand Sophos very well. Once they achieve all the security functions and parameters they want, they are more secure. Many customers who previously used different endpoint and firewall solutions now benefit from synchronized functionality with the complete Sophos suite. So, they become more secure, which is more important.

The security heartbeat feature and MDR are the best for customer security.

The functionality of SD-WAN compared to other boxes is lacking. Certain aspects need improvement, particularly enhancing capabilities like SD-WAN. We should also focus on enhancing XDR and NDR functionality in the firewall boxes and provide more threat protection alerts to users.

I've been working with Sophos for more than 15 years.

The technical team never disappoints us in providing solutions. They give us timely and nice follow-up.

Many of them were using a different endpoint security and a different firewall. But now, with Sophos, they have better security.

The pricing is competitive, and it's a win-win situation for both partners and customers.

In the financial market and banks, other security appliances are more popular than Sophos.

We highly recommend Sophos XGS.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.