SonicWall vs Defguard - Why MSPs choose to migrate to Defguard

Introduction

If you’re running SonicWall on-prem SMA 100/1000 deployments, the common pain points are usually centered around operational complexity and scaling: SSL VPN stacks can become harder to manage as the environment grows, onboarding/offboarding devices and users is still too manual for consistent “zero-trust” behavior, and troubleshooting/visibility can lag when you need to trace access decisions back to identity, MFA events, and network policy.

For these reasons, many Managed Service Providers (MSPs) and Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) are moving away from SonicWall’s SSL VPN and adopting WireGuard-based Defguard to better secure client environments and deliver consistent zero-trust access.

In this article, we compare SonicWall and Defguard and explain why many MSPs and MSSPs are choosing Defguard over SonicWall.

SonicWall forced migration

This migration wave has been driven by three forces:

• SonicWall has moved toward a “cloud-first,” vendor-locked model, forcing customers into migrating to SonicWall’s newer Cloud Secure Edge (CSE), which requires a recurring subscription and implies losing control.
• SonicWall’s October 31, 2025, deactivation of the SMA 100 series: unlike a typical “End of Life” scenario where a device only stops receiving updates, SonicWall disabled backend services required for SMA 100 units to function, following years of severe security incidents (for example, CVE-2021-20016).
• The SonicWall SMA 100 series has shattered administrator trust through a cycle of critical zero-days and persistent rootkits that can bypass even fully patched defenses — a key factor behind the SMA 100 deactivation.

Overall, SonicWall on-premises solutions are legacy and rely on SSL VPN technology, which is generally slower and less reliable than modern alternatives like WireGuard (see Why SSL VPNs are no longer secure).

The punchline: SonicWall was built for yesterday’s perimeter, while Defguard with WireGuard is built for today’s identity-first, high-performance remote access.

Defguard — a transparent and modern alternative to SonicWall

Defguard replaces static, appliance-centric VPN configuration with a centrally managed WireGuard access layer that:

• uses kernel-level WireGuard for VPN transport,
• separates control and data planes to reduce exposure,
• integrates access with SSO and directory synchronization,
• enforces MFA for each connection,
• supports zero-touch enrollment for faster onboarding, and
• records centralized access events for auditing.

For MSPs and MSSPs, this model reduces manual lifecycle work and keeps identity-based access policies consistent across remote-access environments. In the following sections, we compare SonicWall and Defguard across security architecture, identity and MFA, multi-site scalability, and performance.

Security architecture comparison

SMA 100 & 1000 Series (on-premise appliances) do not have a physically isolated control plane. They use an “all-in-one” architecture, which means everything is exposed to the public internet. With Cloud Secure Edge (CSE), which SonicWall promotes as the migration path, SonicWall owns the control plane in their cloud.

This approach shares the same inherent weakness as the SSL VPN architecture now being phased out by most enterprise vendors (see Fortinet’s move to IPsec). Most attacks do not target the VPN protocol itself, but rather the management endpoints of these solutions. In the case of SSL VPNs, there are two primary vulnerabilities:

• Application Layer Exposure: Since SSL VPNs operate at the application layer, exposing the VPN on a firewall means the main VPN data plane is publicly accessible.
• Control Plane Exposure: SSL VPNs require configuration portals (for user/device enrollment and provisioning), which necessitates exposing the VPN control plane to the public.

In contrast, Defguard is built from the ground up with security as its most important principle, embracing a secure-by-design (SBD) architecture. A key differentiator is the deliberate segmentation of systems and components, which is central to its design philosophy.

Defguard separates its control (core) and data (gateway/proxy) planes, drastically reducing risk by preventing lateral movement between public-facing components and your secure internal infrastructure. This architectural segmentation is explained in Defguard’s secure architecture documentation.

Communication between components is intentionally restricted, and best practices (such as using separate VLANs or multiple firewalls) can be implemented at the network level to enforce this isolation. For more details about recommended deployment patterns, reference Defguard’s deployment documentation.

Figure: Defguard separates control and data planes for increased security, while legacy SSL VPNs typically combine them, exposing critical interfaces to the internet.

If you are moving to Defguard, you are moving to a sovereign isolated control plane. You own it. You can host the Defguard core (Control) on one secure server and place your WireGuard gateways (Data) in completely different environments.

How Defguard and SonicWall handle identity and MFA

SonicWall (e.g., SMA 1000) natively supports standard MFA options, including TOTP authenticator apps, email OTP, SMS OTP, client certificates (PKI), and chained local authentication with an extra PIN or secret. This provides baseline second-factor coverage but stays within a traditional SSL VPN model. SonicWall also supports external MFA via SAML and RADIUS integrations with providers like Microsoft Entra ID, Okta, and Google Workspace.

Defguard goes further — it enables additional MFA methods, including:

• TOTP (Authenticator Codes)
• Email Codes
• Mobile App Biometrics
• Multi-device Desktop Authentication with Mobile Biometrics

Defguard supports any OIDC-compliant identity provider — including Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD), Okta, Google Workspace, Keycloak, and other standards-based IdPs — so teams can keep existing SSO workflows while centrally enforcing stronger authentication policies. See Defguard’s Identity Integrations documentation for setup details.

Multi-site scalability comparison

Defguard enables MSPs to manage dozens of client locations with one unified control plane.

This is simply not possible with SonicWall without significant cost multiplication and bloated infrastructure. On-premise SonicWall solutions do not support managing multiple locations from a single appliance. To enforce security policy, inspect traffic, and act as a gateway at a remote location, each physical site needs its own SonicWall appliance. To manage multiple appliances you need the cloud-based Capture Security Center or an on-premise Global Management System.

With Defguard’s unified control plane, MSPs and MSSPs can easily manage dozens — or hundreds — of VPN sites and client networks from a single dashboard. Provision new networks, enforce policies globally, and gain fleet-wide visibility, all without jumping between appliances.

Defguard is able to provide this thanks to its decomposed and segmented architecture where each location runs its own VPN/WireGuard gateway and can be deployed in any location with robust deployment options (Linux package, Docker, Compose, Terraform, OVF images).

The result: with a single Defguard installation you achieve a robust multi-site VPN management environment that can be deployed and connected in very short time. Users can select which location they want to connect to in Defguard Desktop and Mobile clients.

Performance comparison

Defguard’s use of WireGuard provides a significant performance leap over traditional SonicWall SSL VPNs by moving the heavy lifting from the application layer to the operating system kernel.

While SonicWall’s SSL-based connections often run in user-space — triggering high CPU overhead due to constant context switching — WireGuard is integrated directly into the Linux kernel (since 5.6) and uses a kernel-level TUN adapter on Windows. This architectural efficiency, combined with a codebase of roughly ~4,000 lines of code (compared to hundreds of thousands for OpenSSL/IPsec stacks), allows Defguard to achieve near-line-speed throughput with drastically lower latency.

Beyond raw speed, the comparison highlights a fundamental shift in connection stability and cryptography. SonicWall SSL VPNs rely on complex, stateful TLS handshakes that are prone to dropping or hanging when a user switches from Wi-Fi to cellular data.

In contrast, Defguard leverages WireGuard’s stateless UDP design, enabling instant roaming and “always-on” connectivity without the need for a re-authentication delay. Furthermore, Defguard utilizes modern ChaCha20-Poly1305 encryption, which is significantly faster on mobile devices and hardware lacking specialized AES-acceleration than the older ciphers often found in legacy SSL implementations.

The result: a VPN that connects in milliseconds and maintains peak performance even under heavy load or unstable network conditions.

Why Defguard provides a better end-user experience

Compared with common themes in SonicWall Mobile Connect reviews and user feedback — such as reconnect friction, session instability, cumbersome login flow, and manual profile onboarding — Defguard is designed to make daily VPN access smoother and more predictable. While SonicWall deployments often depend on users manually entering gateway details or importing profiles, Defguard supports zero-touch enrollment with provisioning files/tokens (including MSI + GPO/Intune/API-driven rollout), so users get connected faster with fewer setup errors; with WireGuard underneath, connections also come up quickly and stay stable as users move between Wi-Fi and mobile networks.

It also modernizes authentication with options like mobile biometric approval and multi-device login flows, which are both more secure and easier for non-technical users than legacy SSL VPN prompts. Defguard clients additionally support real-time configuration sync, so users always receive current settings automatically without manual reconfiguration.

Defguard also supports multiple instances and multiple locations/VPNs per instance, making it easy to switch between environments, offices, or customer networks from a single desktop or mobile app.

This is especially important for MSPs and MSSPs managing many client tenants, because they must move quickly between separate environments without losing visibility or introducing configuration mistakes. With centralized instance and location switching, teams can keep access organized per customer, reduce operator error, and respond faster to incidents or support requests across distributed networks. It also simplifies day-to-day operations by giving engineers one consistent client workflow instead of juggling multiple VPN tools and profiles.

In short: fewer connection issues, faster login, cleaner client UX, and a more predictable remote access experience for users and IT teams alike.

When SonicWall Still Makes Sense

That said, SonicWall can still be a practical choice in some environments — especially when teams want one combined firewall + VPN platform, need built-in IDS/IPS (tools that detect and block suspicious network traffic), must comply with rules requiring FIPS-validated hardware (devices certified to U.S. government cryptography standards), or already use PKI/smart-card authentication (certificate-based login with company-issued cards/tokens). In those cases, keeping SonicWall (or running it alongside a newer remote-access layer) can make sense in the short to medium term; however, for organizations focused on secure remote access, easy growth across many sites (scalability), and simpler day-to-day operations, Defguard is still the stronger long-term architecture.

In a Nutshell

SonicWall SMA and similar SSL VPN architectures are becoming harder to justify due to security exposure, lifecycle risk, and operational complexity — especially for MSP/MSSP multi-site environments.

Defguard replaces this model with a segmented architecture: an isolated control plane for identity, MFA, and policy, plus distributed WireGuard gateways for data-plane traffic. This enables stronger sovereignty, better zero-trust enforcement, modern OIDC-based identity integration, and simpler fleet-wide management from one console.

From a performance and user-experience perspective, Defguard benefits from WireGuard’s kernel-level efficiency, fast roaming behavior, and lightweight cryptography, delivering lower latency, more stable connections, and easier day-to-day use across desktop and mobile clients. In practice, the migration is not just a VPN swap — it is a shift to a more secure, scalable, and operator-friendly remote access platform.

Feature	SonicWall SMA (SSL VPN)	Defguard (WireGuard)
Protocol / Data Plane	SSL/TLS VPN (application-layer, user-space processing)	WireGuard (kernel-level data plane)
Architecture	Appliance-centric design with tightly coupled management + traffic handling	Segmented architecture: Defguard Core (control plane) + distributed WireGuard gateways (data plane)
Trust Model	Perimeter-centric remote access	Identity-aware, zero-trust-oriented access policies
Identity Integration	Commonly RADIUS/SAML-based integrations	Native OIDC-centric integrations (e.g., Entra ID, Okta, Keycloak)
MFA Experience	Depends on external/legacy auth flow and deployment specifics	Built-in MFA flows, including mobile-assisted approvals/biometrics support
Provisioning / Onboarding	More manual profile/gateway setup in many environments	Zero-touch enrollment with provisioning tokens/files; supports automated rollout workflows
Multi-site / Multi-tenant Operations	Typically one appliance footprint per site; centralized ops often require extra tooling (CSC/GMS)	One unified control plane can manage many sites/tenants with centralized visibility and policy control
Automation & API	More appliance/workflow-driven operations	API-first operations with easier infra automation and lifecycle orchestration
Roaming & Session Stability	TLS session behavior can be less seamless during network changes	Stateless UDP WireGuard behavior enables faster roaming between Wi-Fi/mobile networks
Performance Characteristics	Higher overhead from SSL VPN processing path	Lower overhead and high throughput from WireGuard’s lightweight kernel implementation
Deployment Flexibility	Primarily physical/virtual appliance model	Flexible rollout across Linux, Docker/Compose, Terraform, and OVF
Control Plane Sovereignty	Stronger dependency on vendor appliance/cloud management ecosystem	Self-hosted-first control plane with no mandatory vendor cloud control path