We performed a comparison between Cisco Web Security Appliance and Skyhigh Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Cisco Web Security Appliance is the preferred choice over Skyhigh Security according to user reviews. Users praise its strong web reputation and anti-malware protection, customizable policy framing, and user-friendly interface. It offers different access levels for various groups and integrates with Active Directory. SSL decryption provides full visibility of network traffic, and Umbrella DNS security is a standout feature. On the other hand, Skyhigh Security is considered a market leader but lacks support for unsanctioned applications, has weak API integration, and limited training resources.
"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."
"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."
"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 best feature of Cisco Web Security Appliance is its policy framing. It also has a good UI and it can handle traffic well. Cisco Web Security Appliance is a good product."
"The most valuable feature is that we can use it as a proxy."
"It's a scalable product."
"It also allows you to decrypt SSL traffic, and that's a really important feature as well, which is something I also configured."
"The deployment process is very simple."
"It integrates well with Cisco Email Security Appliance."
"Great for assisting with connections to networks or apps."
"Cisco Web Security Appliance is user-friendly and easy to manage. It protects your environment while accessing the internet."
"The support is excellent."
"The stability is the most valuable feature. We haven't had any issues with the product."
"The feature I found most valuable is the API."
"Skyhigh performs well, and we can choose from virtual and hardware plans. We can deploy the ISO on as many virtual machines as possible and easily set up high availability on the web proxy. The location doesn't matter. The user at a site will always access the web proxy for that location. It's suitable for an organization distributed across multiple regions."
"User analytics."
"A stable solution with good support."
"The management is very good."
"In terms of their compatibility with major cloud providers, in terms of their abilities, capabilities, and features, they exceed everyone's capabilities in the CASB market."
"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"
"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."
"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."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"They need a better graphical interface, and they need a better ISE mechanism."
"The solution needs to be more user-friendly and easier to navigate."
"The transparent proxy is quite difficult to enforce on smartphones and tablets."
"The FTD 21 model's Firepower Threat Defense does not have the multi-instance feature for the virtualization with the physical equipment."
"This solution could be more secure."
"Technical support needs to be improved because they take a very long time and there is no communication or notification."
"There are certain shortcomings related to the product's management capabilities, where improvements are required. The solution needs to provide better management of the category of web pages."
"The solution could improve the graphical user interface. It is not up to the regular standard of what we would expect from Cisco. Additionally, they need to improve the categorization when blocking in the settings. The CLI could have a better view than the graphical user interface but I did not investigate further."
"Needs integration with other technology ecosystems."
"The solution is hard to configure, our team does not have specific training requirements for McAfee making it difficult."
"One thing that can be improved is their ability to integrate with other web proxies to discover unsanctioned IP apps."
"Its initial setup could be more straightforward."
"McAfee Web Gateway could improve the reporting. We have the reporting on a separate server and sometimes the database becomes full. These aspects could improve."
"SkyHigh has the ability to place users or groups on a ‘Watchlist’; which allows you to see certain views with these Watchlists users/groups in them. This is great when you are looking at live data but if I wanted to generate a report on "only" the watchlists."
"User interface could be more intuitive."
"The tool could improve flexibility with the creation of reports/querying data."
Cisco Web Security Appliance is ranked 9th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 29 reviews while Skyhigh Security is ranked 6th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 51 reviews. Cisco Web Security Appliance is rated 7.8, while Skyhigh Security is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Web Security Appliance writes "Ensures security for remote workers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Skyhigh Security writes "Good scalability, but the technical support service needs improvement". Cisco Web Security Appliance is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiProxy, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Symantec Proxy, whereas Skyhigh Security is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps and Symantec Proxy. See our Cisco Web Security Appliance 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.