We performed a comparison between Perimeter 81 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."The solution is stable."
"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 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."
"It connects quickly and stays connected. The user interface is pretty neat too. The app has in-house support with user guides that give you step-by-step walkthroughs on navigating the app. In addition, there is a live chat feature that offers prompt assistance on the go."
"Our operators can work from home without any problems."
"It has provided a seamless gateway to much-needed platforms."
"Perimeter 81 has increased my security and privacy while maintaining solid internet performance."
"Scaling Perimeter 81 was easy to do."
"Perimeter 81 provides a very secure and non-disruptive experience."
"Perimeter 81 is very pretty."
"The feature that I have found to be most valuable is the reputation that the company has regarding privacy. Nowadays, this is critical, especially when you do all of your work online."
"I personally don't have any issues with the performance or the stability of the solution."
"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."
"What's most valuable in Skyhigh Security is its level of security. Another valuable feature of the solution is threat analysis."
"It's an easy-to-use product."
"Data loss prevention and user behavior analysis are two valuable features."
"The feature I found most valuable is the API."
"Overall, the performance is good."
"Offers a very strong URL spam filtering feature."
"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."
"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."
"I don't know if it is technically feasible, however, if the Desktop App could be used as a Web App or a Chrome Extension it would be very nice."
"A Google Chrome extension would be handy instead of logging into the app."
"There is a very small amount of downtime."
"In order to have to bypass the login using the website, a good feature for Perimeter 81 to have is a login instance in the Perimeter 81 application. I'm using a Mac and we don't have that functionality."
"Perimeter 81 could enhance its reporting and analytics capabilities to provide more detailed insights into network activity."
"The overall UI could be improved and updated to bring a simpler feel to the application."
"Offering in-app explanations detailing what each feature does, its benefits and potential use cases can help users better understand and utilize the tool to its full potential."
"In the future, maybe P81 can improve the network traffic balancing and redundancy."
"McAfee needs to add more products that could be managed from the cloud."
"One area for improvement I've seen in Skyhigh Security is that it lacks support for unsanctioned applications, where customers have their applications. Those applications do not come from Microsoft or other popular vendors. For example, Microsoft has support for Teams and it has support for OneDrive, but it doesn't have support for custom applications built by customers. Customers have internal teams building and publishing applications to the external world, but Skyhigh Security doesn't have support for those applications, and this is the main problem I've seen. The solution only supports a pool of applications that are from Microsoft and other major SaaS vendors. McAfee doesn't provide support for custom applications, compared to other vendors who provide it. For example, Bitglass and Netskope both have support for custom applications. Another area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is that its API support is a little weak. I also have not seen a strong integration between the solution and other McAfee products."
"They could be integrated with CASB. I think normally McAfee has this solution in the cloud, but for us the best is on-premise."
"De-tokenization."
"It is an expensive solution."
"The encrypted disk implementation could be improved. I currently use it from a dongle or USB key with two-factor authentication to access my computer."
"Skyhigh Security, as a product, is excellent, but in terms of the right services and support, those are lagging very much, for example, in Trellix. From one hundred, its score has gone down to ten, so ten out of one hundred, otherwise, it's the number one product."
"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."
Perimeter 81 is ranked 8th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 22 reviews while Skyhigh Security is ranked 6th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 51 reviews. Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2, while Skyhigh Security is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Skyhigh Security writes "Good scalability, but the technical support service needs improvement". Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access and Tailscale, whereas Skyhigh Security is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Symantec Proxy and Zscaler CASB. See our Perimeter 81 vs. Skyhigh Security report.
See our list of best Secure Web Gateways (SWG) vendors and best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) 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.