We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Skyhigh Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"It has protected clients against cyberattacks."
"SWG allows me to track internet usage patterns, helping optimize bandwidth and understand how much time each employee spends online."
"The critical role is web URL filtering."
"The solution provided our organization with easy and secure internet access."
"Giving visibility to people's actions in the network, while keeping attackers out: across data centers, offices, branches, and the cloud."
"I have found the simplicity of the solution valuable. The dashboard and reports are good as well."
"In terms of performance, Forcepoint stands out because it is more scalable than any other solution. It can extend to different types of boxes and integrate well with other platforms and vendors. And it doesn't need to have the same kind of box or throughput to have high availability."
"There is some sandboxing available, which is quite useful."
"It's an easy-to-use product."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"Overall, the performance is good."
"I like the encrypted disk feature and the endpoint protection."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward and easy to perform."
"The product has a very high rating from reviewers. It's a well-respected product."
"The feature I like best about Skyhigh Security is its wide range of product support. For example, my company had NetApp storage running, and Skyhigh Security has on-premises NetApp storage support, which isn't available in other solutions. Skyhigh Security also has a better filtering feature versus the filtering feature in other solutions."
"The solution performs well."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"The solution should be better able to support itself and operate faster. Sometimes the technical support team takes too long to respond."
"But the deployment could be easier. It might take from one day to three days. Usually, that involves an engineer from the vendor and a working team at the enterprise."
"I have been in contact with technical support several times, and I am not happy with them."
"The deployment is a bit complex and it requires expertise to deploy, which is something that should be improved and made easier to do."
"To access the root of the product for troubleshooting you must have a data engineer. This is the big issue with Forcepoint. The support community is not good."
"Ease of use could be improved."
"I am looking forward to the full integration of the endpoints that they offer for web security and DLP."
"I'd like to see the solution improve the banded optimization to offer more bandwidth control, similar to what is on offer with Blue Coat."
"MVISION Cloud is not well known and there should be more information about the solution. There could be integration to local applications."
"De-tokenization."
"User interface could be more intuitive."
"It needs to be more user-friendly, as it is a little bit complicated to use."
"The documentation could be improved."
"They could be integrated with CASB. I think normally McAfee has this solution in the cloud, but for us the best is on-premise."
"The performance of the tool can be improved to provide faster report generation."
"An area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is its UI. It needs to be enhanced and made more user-friendly. Right now, the UI of Skyhigh Security is sometimes confusing. For example, my company is deploying Skyhigh Security for a client and integrating it on the cloud, from an on-premises deployment to a hybrid deployment. Though the experience isn't bad, there needs to be more enhancements. Another room for improvement in Skyhigh Security is the limited training resources, especially when you compare it with Cisco, which has many study materials in the market, even free training resources. You'll get limited resources if you search for Skyhigh Security tutorials on Google and YouTube. Because of high-security requirements and the training material for Skyhigh Security not being available, most engineers and architects avoid the product because there'd be a lack of knowledge in configuring and achieving the goals you'd want to reach via the use of Skyhigh Security. The NOC team deploying the product is having difficulty getting training resources for Skyhigh Security. You'll be charged an enormous amount if you search the market for training because of the limited resources available. Skyhigh Security needs to work on marketing and awareness as an improvement to the product."
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 5th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 47 reviews while Skyhigh Security is ranked 12th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 51 reviews. Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8, while Skyhigh Security is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway writes "Simple to set up, reliable, and offers great reporting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Skyhigh Security writes "Good scalability, but the technical support service needs improvement". Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Netskope , whereas Skyhigh Security is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Symantec Proxy and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security. See our Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway vs. Skyhigh Security report.
See our list of best Secure Web Gateways (SWG) vendors.
We monitor all Secure Web Gateways (SWG) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.