We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Email and Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Cisco, TitanHQ and others in Email Security."The product is not resource-intensive."
"The email protection is excellent, especially in terms of anti-phishing policies."
"It gives us visibility into threats and, for endpoints, it helps us to prioritize threats. We used to have a lack of visibility, but now our time to detect and respond has decreased."
"Defender for 365 is a comprehensive cloud-based solution. The value of the cloud is that you aren't alone. Threat intelligence and analytics are shared in the cloud. We don't have to find the solution alone. If you face an unknown threat with traditional solutions like Trend Micro and Symantec, you need to open a case and send your information to them to analyze forensically and identify the source of the attack."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is the ease of use."
"The technical support is good and quick to resolve issues."
"The product's scalability is good."
"The initial setup was easy."
"There are a lot of filters for scam emails and things like that work out of the box. You can also use the antivirus features. I like its features."
"I love the Advanced Malware Protection feature. It works very well... The appliance has more security such as SDF, DKIM, DMARC, and encryption."
"What I find the most valuable about Cisco Secure Email is that the logs are not that difficult to see even if you're not used to them. The logs are reasonably readable and diagnosing the problem is not too hard with them."
"The solution is very configurable. It has enabled us to configure some specific filters to stop emails that general configurations didn't stop. It's a powerful solution. It can analyze a lot of emails simultaneously, with no problems of capacity or system load."
"There is a huge return compared to if we didn't have a gateway appliance, as far as blocking malicious emails."
"It blocks bulk marketing messages, graymail, spam, and provides advanced malware protection."
"The most significant enhancement we've gained is in terms of security through the upgrade we received."
"Spam controls are excellent because they are a powerful feature that operates almost effortlessly."
"The customization and control of URL filtering and the integration with other Forcepoint solutions are great features."
"The solution’s administration is easy."
"The antiviral sandboxing."
"The policies are category-based, so knowledge of another content URL is not compulsory."
"SWG allows me to track internet usage patterns, helping optimize bandwidth and understand how much time each employee spends online."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to allow or block sites by category."
"Most valuable features are content filtering and monitoring."
"Too many false positives and lacks an accurate capability to detect malicious SharePoint sites."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 should improve the troubleshooting tools. It's unclear whether the device is blocked at the firewall level or at the device itself. The granularity needed for troubleshooting is currently lacking. From my perspective, Microsoft should address this issue to benefit many users who likely share the same sentiment."
"The visibility for the weaknesses in the system and unauthorized access can be improved."
"We need a separate license and we don't know how to get the license that is required."
"One area for improvement is integration. For example, when it comes to external SaaS platforms, we were not able to get a lot of information on integrations with such apps for security and authentication."
"There's room for improvement regarding the time frame for retrieving emails."
"Microsoft wants its well-paying customers to finish testing some of its half-baked products, find bugs, and report bugs back to Microsoft's team, which is a little frustrating for those who have to manage it and roll it up to thousands of people across the organization."
"You should be able to deploy Defender for every subscription without the need to add servers."
"Scalability has certain shortcomings and needs to be improved because there are service providers who provide better scalability.v"
"I would rate the stability a six out of ten. We had multiple issues with the stability."
"We have been struggling in the last month with Cisco encryption and with the S/MIME encryption. I don't know if it is an issue on our side or if these features of the solution are not working very well."
"Cisco is already providing a very good environment with the IronPort solution, but there could be some more integration with other products. For instance, an integration with the EDR solution could be there to raise an alert."
"They can do it better with web links, with the URLs. They have a technology called Outbreak but it doesn't work as well as we would like."
"The hardware is not up to the mark. Two to three times a year we have complete downtime."
"The initial setup was complex because I have two sites with physical clusters."
"The management features of the product are not up to date."
"Overall the software is occupying too much memory space. If they could remedy that, it would be a better experience, because today Windows is occupying too much memory space as well (in terms of the RAM), and this software has also started occupying all the memory. Due to this, I have less space for my other office products and data. I can't, for example, operate a huge Excel sheet or other datasets."
"The reporting must be improved."
"The solution should be better able to support itself and operate faster. Sometimes the technical support team takes too long to respond."
"There are several issues with the product. Version 8.4 can only be managed with a CLI, they removed the nice GUI interface from version 8.1. The load-balancing needs massive improvements. The incident lists don’t sync between appliances, they need to be manually edited for each one."
"A room for improvement in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is the support it offers. It's very bad. What I'd like to see in the next release of the product is for it to be less complicated because at the moment Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is more complicated than other products. Sometimes issues come up that you can't solve without the support team. For example, you should write the root password to fix the issue. In the next release of the product, it would be good if it had an easy-to-use interface. Troubleshooting issues in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway should be less complicated as well."
"The technical support team's response time could be improved."
"Reports in the sand-boxing, ease of deployment of sensors to ready to go server with one click of a button."
"Managing the endpoint for both DLP and web security should be simplified."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Email is ranked 2nd in Email Security with 55 reviews while Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 6th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 47 reviews. Cisco Secure Email is rated 8.4, while Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Email writes "Has effortless spam control, improves security posture, and frees up our IT department's time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway writes "Simple to set up, reliable, and offers great reporting". Cisco Secure Email is most compared with Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Trellix Collaboration Security, Fortinet FortiMail, Proofpoint Email Protection and Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense, whereas Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG.
We monitor all Email 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.