1. Logging and Monitoring: Fail2ban primarily focuses on monitoring log files for specific patterns related to unauthorized access attempts and bans the IP addresses associated with those attempts, whereas Sophos offers a more comprehensive security suite that includes logging and monitoring alongside other security features.

2. Graphical User Interface (GUI): Sophos provides a GUI that allows users to easily manage and monitor security settings, while Fail2ban relies on configuration files and command-line interface for setup and operation, which can be more complex for users without technical expertise.

3. Features: Sophos includes features like antivirus, firewall, intrusion prevention, and web filtering in addition to its monitoring and logging capabilities, making it a more robust security solution compared to Fail2ban that focuses solely on log file monitoring and IP banning.

4. Scalability: Fail2ban is more suitable for smaller environments with a limited number of machines, as it requires installation and configuration on each individual system, while Sophos offers centralized management and scalability for large networks through its centralized management console.

5. Vendor Support: Sophos provides vendor support, regular updates, and patches to ensure the system stays secure, whereas Fail2ban being an open-source solution may not have the same level of vendor support and timely updates, which can impact its effectiveness in addressing evolving threats.

6. Cost: Sophos is a commercial product with licensing fees, which may be a consideration for budget-constrained organizations, while Fail2ban is open-source software that can be implemented at no additional cost, making it a more budget-friendly option for some users.

In Summary, Fail2ban is a free, open-source solution focused on log file monitoring and IP banning, whereas Sophos offers a comprehensive security suite with features like antivirus, firewall, and centralized management but comes with licensing fees.