This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Does any one know if XG is roughly at feature parity with the UTM yet?

Does any one know if XG is roughly at feature parity with the UTM yet?

Thanks

Richard.



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • Not sure this question makes total sense in a general way. You can have a general "feature parity" that fails spectacularly because of one noe-quite-there feature. For example, XG still does not have IPv6 PD, though if you have a static IPv6 for the XG it works fine. So there might be a sort of "parity" but if you have an ISP that gives you your IPv6 via PD, the XG won't work for you.

    Similarly, the UTM has historically. had a more polished and user-friendly interface, but I've read about some things lately where it's apparently not superior. But then, does UI count or do you mean operational features (IPv6 PD, SD-WAN rules including QoS) or performance (XGS acceleration), or something else? There are probably some features of XG that would be worth putting up with downgrades in other areas from UTM... for some use cases.

    Personally, I'm a happy XG user who never used UTM, and have only used XG since 18.0 or so, and it's had a fairly good development momentum now that working with the Fastpath acceleration (XGS hardware) is behind them. I'm sure the preparation for the new mechanism bottlenecked a lot of other feature work during the pre-18.5 era.

  • Thanks Wayne. We are a UTM customer that's been advised to move to XG/XGS instead of renewing our UTM license in 2023. So i'm wondering what features XG does not have that UTM does. So far I found that XG does not support forward proxy, which we are using, but that's probably not a show-stopper. Also logging seems to better in UTM, logs are kept until the disk fills up, but XG only seems to keep the logs for 24 hours.

  • Both points are not correct. 

    SFOS supports logging for Logviewer and an external Log module. Logviewer is a database on the firewall - (from my perspective the better approach to live log on UTM). Logviewer saved data based on the available storage. But its not a Reporting tool. If you want reporting - SFOS saves reporting on the firewall itself and can do it in Central as well. In Central you can build your own reports. It is free for 7 Days log retention. 

    Forward Proxy - SFOS does support a WAF, if you mean this by using a forward proxy. 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • The logging in the free version of cm does not allow for email or export of the reports. You have to view and analyse all reports on line.

    ian

    XG115W - v20 GA - Home

    XG on VM 8 - v20 GA

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • Thanks LuCar. We don't need reporting, but we do need to see 7 days of logs.

  • Thanks Ian. I didn't know that. I am using the free test version, that's why I guess.

  • Logs or Report? What is the specific use case you want to address? 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reply Children
No Data