Indeed, cybersecurity threats are not taking it slow in Africa, with attackers becoming more organised and incessant.
In the first half of 2025 alone, sub-Saharan Africa saw more than 42 million web-based attacks and nearly 96 million on-device attacks, including malware, spyware and backdoors, up from the previous year.
In Nigeria, almost 1.5 million online attack attempts were blocked by security tools, with nearly one in five users (19.9 %) targeted.
This threat occurrence makes choosing the right cybersecurity stack important. Two widely adopted options worldwide and more in African markets are Palo Alto Networks and Sophos.
Both provide firewalls and Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)-related functions. But they differ in design, cost structure, manageability and suitability for smaller security teams.
This article compares Palo Alto Networks and Sophos across threat prevention, networking and SASE functions, cost, ease of deployment, management and local support.
The Threat Environment in 2025–2026
Before looking at products, it helps to understand what these tools must defend against.
Cybercrime reports from late 2025 show a surge in attacks across the continent, with ransomware, business email compromise (BEC) and digital extortion reaching new heights.
Interpol-led enforcement measures in late 2025 disrupted cybercrime operations in 19 African nations, where attackers caused more than $21 million in losses before law enforcement intervened.
Globally, ransomware incidents increased steeply in 2025, with some reports indicating that nearly 78% of organisations experienced ransomware attacks over the prior year.
These show the scale and sophistication of modern threats and African enterprises that may not have large security teams, and need to ensure prevention is both effective and realistic.
Threat Prevention Capabilities
Palo Alto Networks
Palo Alto firewalls are built on the PAN-OS platform and supported by a threat intelligence backbone known as WildFire. Users frequently mention strong traffic inspection, advanced threat detection and integrated intrusion prevention.
In independent comparisons, Palo Alto products usually edge out competitors on threat prevention and machine-learning-driven analysis.
Palo Alto’s platforms are typically paired with Cortex XDR for endpoint visibility, and the vendor has been expanding cloud and identity security through recent acquisitions.
Sophos
Sophos firewalls, including Sophos XGS, focus on coordinated security with endpoint protection and centralised policy management. Sophos Central allows visibility across network and endpoints, and the company emphasises simplicity and integration in a single console.
Independent comparisons show that Sophos provides strong basic threat protection and advanced malware blocking, though some users find deeper configuration and reporting less mature than in higher-end platforms.
Direct Comparison
In independent user rating reports updated in early 2026, Palo Alto’s firewall solutions generally score slightly higher in threat prevention, while Sophos scores strongly for usability and value.
In one comparison, Palo Alto firewalls had a slightly higher average rating, and both products had high user recommendations.
Palo Alto may provide richer telemetry and deeper real-time threat visibility, but Sophos gives solid protection with easier management for smaller teams.
SASE and Network Security
Palo Alto Networks
Palo Alto’s SASE services centre on Prisma Access, a cloud-delivered security service that combines secure web gateway, cloud access security broker (CASB), zero-trust network access (ZTNA) and firewall services.
Prisma is widely deployed in larger, distributed enterprises, providing consistent security policies regardless of user location.
Recent product activities, including acquisitions in cloud monitoring and identity security, show Palo Alto is doubling down on integrated security beyond traditional appliances.
For organisations with complex hybrid networks and global reach, this unified approach can reduce gaps between network and cloud security.
Sophos
Sophos places its security service through Sophos XGS firewalls integrated with cloud management and synchronised protection with endpoint products.
The company has also moved into SASE-like offerings combining secure connectivity and visibility, though its approach is considered less fully featured than some leading rivals.
Sophos’s strength lies in ease of deployment and ongoing management through Sophos Central, which can be valuable for teams without dedicated security engineers.
So…
Palo Alto Networks provides a more feature-rich SASE suite with strong integration across cloud and network security, while Sophos gives a simpler set of SASE-aligned management that can be easier to manage but may not cover all enterprise use cases.
Cost and Total Cost of Ownership
Cost is a big determinant for African enterprises with tight IT budgets.
Palo Alto Networks
Palo Alto products are typically higher priced. Licensing depends on throughput, feature sets and number of users. Support and subscription services add to long-term spend.
For enterprises with complex needs, the higher cost is usually justified by deep inspection and advanced analytics.
However, smaller organisations may find the licensing tiers and hardware requirements challenging to budget for.
Sophos
Sophos licences are bundled more broadly, with firewall, endpoint and some network protection included in single packages. This bundling can make budgeting more predictable.
Sophos is generally seen as more cost-friendly for small and mid-sized businesses, though total costs still depend on the scale of deployment and feature requirements.
In user comparisons, Sophos is described as offering a good return on investment for lean teams, while Palo Alto’s suite is positioned at the higher end of the market.
Deployment and Ongoing Management
Palo Alto Networks
Palo Alto firewalls provide extensive configuration options but can require specialist knowledge to deploy and tune correctly. For small teams without senior security engineers, this complexity can be a barrier.
Training and certification are widely available, but they add to total implementation time and cost.
Sophos
Sophos prioritises a centralised, cloud-managed console and is generally easier to deploy. Most basic policies can be enabled quickly, and integrated endpoint support simplifies configurations.
Sophos’s management interface is friendlier for smaller teams, though advanced customisation options may be more limited.
Support Ecosystem and Regional Presence
Local support and partner networks can greatly influence operational success.
Palo Alto has a global partner ecosystem, but certified partners in Africa are often focused on larger enterprises.
Sophos also has a widespread partner network and is frequently chosen by regional managed service providers because of its easier onboarding and training.
For African organisations without in-house expertise, the availability of certified resellers and support partners able to assist with deployment and maintenance is a key factor.
Palo Alto Networks is a strong choice for organisations with adequate security staff, larger networks and complex compliance requirements. Its threat prevention capabilities, SASE maturity and integration across cloud and network environments offer broad protection for sophisticated threats.
Sophos suits smaller enterprises and lean IT teams. It provides effective threat prevention, straightforward deployment and bundled features that offer predictable cost and management simplicity.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer. For tight budgets and limited staff, Sophos provides the best balance of security depth and operational ease.
For larger enterprises or those facing persistent advanced threats, Palo Alto’s richer feature set may justify the higher cost.
