We performed a comparison between McAfee Web Protection [EOL] and Menlo Security Remote Browser Isolation based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Zscaler, Forcepoint and others in Internet Security."The most valuable features of McAfee Web Protection are the reporter, and you have the option to have an agent installed in the notebooks or on the mobiles. You are able to have the same policies inside and outside of your organization which is a benefit."
"It doesn't seem to take too much system bandwidth, and I also like its reporting. Once a month, it gives me a reminder of the activity. It reminds me that the protection is on, and if there are any issues, it summarizes those minor issues. During the month, it only notifies when there is something special."
"The solution is not too expensive. It's affordable."
"The most valuable is the blocking of blacklisted sites, a URL that is, either by intelligence or by McAfee, detected as a malicious site."
"The product is quite an effective firewall."
"The solution does what it's meant to do."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it protects against threats that are coming from the web."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in the configuration for security roles."
"Menlo Security RBI's best feature is its threat isolation engine."
"In McAfee Web Protection there are gaps in the security design, in the overall architecture, the gaps need to be fixed."
"The manufacturerers should have more transparancy about exactly what is getting filtered when you use the product and why."
"The solution could always use more security features. If it was more secure, it would be an even stronger product."
"The initial setup could be simplified, there is a learning curve during the implementation."
"The configuration could be simplified because it is more complex to make the configuration on McAfee. What can be improved is the support of the agent on smartphones, IOS or Android. That still now is not available yet."
"The True Key version for mobile phones should be improved. The password manager is not as seamless as on the desktop. Once implemented, on the desktop, when you go to the site, it automatically fills and connects you, whereas, on the mobile phone, it doesn't do that quite seamlessly. You need to open the True Key application and then select the password you want to use. It then opens in the browser. There are fewer steps in the desktop version as compared to the mobile version."
"The solution should be more proactive in regards to sending you updates."
"We used a consultant to help us set it up. Unfortunately, he was not that good. They were out of McAfee people. He was a consultant and knew the product, but he was not a McAfee person. How they managed it and how they worked was not straightforward."
"Menlo Security RBI could be more cloud-friendly, and its mobility could be improved."
More Menlo Security Remote Browser Isolation Pricing and Cost Advice →
McAfee Web Protection [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Internet Security with 16 reviews while Menlo Security Remote Browser Isolation is ranked 7th in Internet Security with 1 review. McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is rated 8.2, while Menlo Security Remote Browser Isolation is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of McAfee Web Protection [EOL] writes "Secure, reasonably priced, and performs well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Menlo Security Remote Browser Isolation writes "Stable and scalable solution with a great threat isolation engine". McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Menlo Security Remote Browser Isolation is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Cloudflare Access, Skyhigh Security and Perimeter 81.
See our list of best Internet Security vendors.
We monitor all Internet Security 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.