NGINX, a business unit of F5 Networks, powers over 65% of the world's busiest websites and web applications. NGINX started out as an open source web server and reverse proxy, built to be faster and more efficient than Apache. Over the years, NGINX has built a suite of infrastructure software products o tackle some of the biggest challenges in managing high-transaction applications. NGINX offers a suite of products to form the core of what organizations need to create…
N/A
Sophos UTM
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
Sophos UTM provides core firewall features, plus sandboxing and AI threat detection for advanced network security. It has customizable deployment options.
N/A
Pricing
NGINX
Sophos UTM
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
NGINX
Sophos UTM
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
t2.small - $0.123 - Total / hr
m3.medium - $0.417 - Total / hr
m3.large - $0.883 - Total / hr
m3.xlarge - $1.366 - Total / hr
m3.2xlarge- $1.982 - Total / hr
c3.large - $0.555 - Total / hr
c3.xlarge - $1.11 - Total / hr
c3.2xlarge - $1.72 - Total / hr
c3.4xlarge - $2.59 - Total / hr
c3.8xlarge - $3.68 - Total / hr
c4.large - $0.55 - Total / hr
c4.xlarge - $1.099 - Total / hr
c4.2xlarge - $1.698 - Total / hr
c4.4xlarge - $2.546 - Total / hr
c4.8xlarge - $3.841 - Total / hr
m4.large - $0.868 - Total / hr
m4.xlarge - $1.365 - Total / hr
m4.2xlarge- $1.931 - Total / hr
How does it compare? We use Apache ATP server and we also use Tom Cat also owned by Apache, but both Apache, ATP, and MKA. They are relatively older than GX and so they're one problem for Apache and MKA they need more power, more memory, and more space.
NGINX have higher market share which obviously show to us it is the preferred choice of most of the customers. Both of platform competes in the Web and Application server areas, but due the security features of NGINX be more flexible this in my opinion makes more sense.
Apache is a market leader but NGINX is new and has new features. Lightweight and can handle static requests. We use EC2 and I believe NGINX is more suited when it comes to scalability.
MS IIS and Apache HTTP server both provide many similar services. However the configuration simplicity, and performance characteristics helped us choose NGINX above the other 2 products.
I have found that [NGINX] seems to perform better throughout the years with less issues although I've used Apache more. I would definitely recommend [NGINX] for any high volume site and I've seen this to usually be the case from most provided web hosts who will pick [NGINX] …
NGINX Stacks up at the top for me because it's fast, reliable, and secure and apache is also usable but not so good in comparison to NGINX and since I and my organization have switched to NGINX I also don't want to look back at apache as NGINX works the best for our use case …
NGINX's footprint is much smaller than Apache, and it's great for serving up static content. The URL rewriting was not as familiar as Apache, but just as powerful once configured correctly. As a load balancer, it's much more affordable than Citrix ADC. We used the load …
Compared to Apache, NGINX is much lighter on resource consumption, and also far faster as a server, serving static content over twice as fast in most benchmark tests. NGINX doesn't offer as much potential configuration and customization as Apache, however, so if these advanced …
Nginx's cache mechanism is better than Apache and HAproxy. Also Nginx is very light weight and works for multiple sites with much less work. i.e. As front end proxy server configuration is very easy as compared to other applications. Apache sometimes crashes and is not able to …
I would rate Sophos second on this list right below Webroot. Webroot has an easier user interface and policy builder. However, Sophos would be on top of its UI would be improved. I would rank CrowStrike third and McAfee last. Sophos is great for complex environments that have …
We replaced our SonicWall with a Sophos UTM. The SonicWall didn't do half of the things the Sophos UTM can do. We wanted an all in one solution that was increased security and was easy to use. Managing Sophos compared to Sonicwall has been so much easier. It has saved us a lot …
The Linksys was a router, so the comparison isn't quite the same, but I previously worked on a SonicWall firewall. The setup is by far easier on the Sophos UTM device. That alone makes it enticing, but thrown multiple services options such as email and web filtering, endpoint …
Systems Administrator | POS Programming Specialist
Chose Sophos UTM
The Meraki firewalls are kind of like the little brother of the UTM devices. They work really well and integrate nicely, but it would be better suited for a business that using nothing but Meraki gear. pfSense is a great free tool, but not very business oriented nor is the …
The high feature set of Sophos, along with the price point made it a perfect fit for our organization. Of course, we were promised many features and capabilities, and I'm happy to report that this tool delivered on all of those. On top of that, or resale partner recommended it …
Unlike Sophos UTM, Dell SonicWall's features are mostly subscription based which means you'll have to purchase additional items such as VPN connectivity per user etc.
All firewalls take some learning to get used to the interface, but the Sophos UTM makes more sense than the Cisco ASA or the SonicWall interface. As an experienced engineer who has used dozens of different routers it was easy to figure out how to configure what I needed. Sophos …
Sophos delivers great throughput, and great and simple WebGUI. There is no other honest (or even capable) high availability scenario for industries that needs 99% of uptime (almost everyone, since now everyone relies on the Internet). Robust hardware and in the software …
I use it at home because it's better than just using a Wireless Router; has more features than most home users require and or know exists, such as the ability to use VPN to protect your connection if you're using public WIFI.
Nginx is well suited for serving any static content - whether that be images, JS files, HTML files, CSS files, videos, etc. If you have a high-traffic website, Nginx will be a great fit because it handles large number of requests extremely efficiently. Nginx has full support on Unix systems, but only has limited support on Microsoft Windows machines.
Sophos is a very powerful anti-virus program that can be used in small and big businesses. Sophos has multiple features that can be customized to fit IT and business needs. Sophos would be less appropriate for IT personnel that do not have the time or knowledge of implementing the problem. The setup of its policies can be very complex.
Straight-forward configuration format that users of all skill levels can learn, and yet is powerful enough for the huge breadth of features that Nginx provides.
Massive scale right out the box. We've never had a Nginx instance overwhelmed by requests, and if we did it would be trivial to spin up more Nginx instances to handle the load.
SSL termination means that we can deliver content over HTTPS without needing our individual services to require TLS support. This saves us a lot of time and headache while keeping us secure.
Nginx is open-source and free, meaning that anyone can use it to power their services, from individual projects to billion-dollar websites.
Nginx often requires some initial configuration. It's worth doing, because you'll end up with great results, but it can be slightly daunting for someone to get started using it. Apache might have a leg up in that regard--When you install Apache, typically it's just about ready to do what you want already. But the issue with Apache is that most people skip the extensive tuning phase required after that, and with nginx it becomes more just a part of the configuration process.
Sometimes, the configuration syntax, even though it's powerful and terse, isn't the most intuitive. Luckily there's plenty of documentation about what things mean and how to accomplish certain things. There may not be much that can be done about this--to have a powerful web server, you need a powerful-enough configuration language.
The nginx brand is somewhat fragmented, and it can be confusing. There's the open source nginx web server, which I've primarily been referring to. But then there's NGINX Plus, a premium subscription-based service which works with a range of other NGINX products (NGINX WAF, NGINX Amplify, NGINX Controller). I've met a number of people who weren't very familiar with nginx, and instinctively went to nginx.com first, and from there it seems like everything costs money. It's only when they realize there's a different site, nginx.org, that they find what they went looking for.
Front end proxy and reverse proxy of Nginx is always useful. I always prefer to Nginx in overall usability when you have application server and database or multiple application servers and single database i.e. clustered application. Nginx provides really good features and flexibility which helps the system administrator in case of troubleshooting and also from the administration perspective. Also, Nginx doesn't delay any request because of internal performance issues.
The interface is no non-sense and easy to understand. No need for any consultants to help implement this solution. The performance is consistent and solid. Paired with a good amount of firmware and definitions, it's hard to find any fault in this product. It's interoperability with other Sophos products make a compelling argument to invest in more Sophos products.
Community support is great, and they've also had a presence at conferences. Overall, there is no shortage of documentation and community support. We're currently using it to serve up some WordPress sites, and configuring NGINX for this purpose is well documented.
I find the support fair. The wait can be frustrating when dealing with fire. The pandemic has not helped with this. Although the wait can be long, the support reps are knowledgeable and was able to resolve the issues I was facing.
I have found that [NGINX] seems to perform better throughout the years with less issues although I've used Apache more. I would definitely recommend [NGINX] for any high volume site and I've seen this to usually be the case from most provided web hosts who will pick [NGINX] over alternatives
The Linksys was a router, so the comparison isn't quite the same, but I previously worked on a SonicWall firewall. The setup is by far easier on the Sophos UTM device. That alone makes it enticing, but thrown multiple services options such as email and web filtering, endpoint support, seamless WAP and RED device integration and it wasn't a very hard decision to make.
When we first migrated our primary bidding environment architecture to Nginx, it was under duress due to Apache's inability to keep up when we consolidated away from an HAproxy model to a central HTTP proxy. So we even when we did not know what we were doing, we were able to make it work in a bad situation, and everyone was quite happy.
The biggest complaint I have is that I find the module compilation requirements for nginx+ rather burdensome. If we pay for Nginx+, I'd love to see then have pre-built modules for ready for each release of more modules. We are spending our own time engineering an in-house solution for module testing for nginx+ releases, which is disappointing.
I've also, as the primary Nginx person at my organization, inserted my expertise into other projects, and have saved our company lots of money getting rid of big $$$ appliances for general SSL proxying.
Speaking of Nginx replacing SSL appliances, we had an instance where we had to suddenly enable elliptic-curve SSL ciphers and our big $$$ appliances (you know who they are), were falling over. Even their SSL accelerator cards, after all, are just a few extra cores to process SSL. But in an environment of our size, we use DNS to spread the load to hundreds of frontend proxies with dozens of cores each to spread this load out, all at a lower price than ONE of the appliance pairs running Nginx. We couldn't even tell the change in load in our Nginx architecture when we enabled the ciphers.