We performed a comparison between Cisco Web Security Appliance and Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The Cisco Web Security Appliance is the preferred choice over the Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway due to its more comprehensive features, including SSL decryption, policy framing, and integration with Active Directory. Users praise the technical support for both products, but the Cisco product is considered more stable and user-friendly. The pricing structure of the Cisco product is also seen as more reasonable, with a one-time licensing fee and subscription-based options available, while the Netskope product is deemed expensive and requires the purchase of physical appliances.
"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."
"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."
"I would recommend this solution to others."
"The most valuable feature is that we can use it as a proxy."
"Cisco regularly upgrades features for the customer's security requirements."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the functions of proxy for the users who use the internet and the security it offers against the not-so-secure web pages."
"It integrates well with Cisco Email Security Appliance."
"The tool has good Umbrella DNS security."
"The technical support is good. It is reactive and the documentation is very specific and very useful."
"Since working with the tool, we have not found any threats in our organization."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its three modules, which are SWG, ZTNA, and CASB."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is that everything is on the cloud. It has no on-premise hardware to deal with."
"The solution's CASB, DLP, and threat protection features are very good."
"Overall, the product is nice, and I like the URL filtering, CASB, and other security stacks like threat prevention."
"The solution has some useful features, such as microservices. They have sandboxing that allows the prevention, encryption, and remote browser isolation."
"Prevents data leakage and protects data."
"Web filtering and DLP are good features."
"We can connect cloud apps and monitor them."
"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."
"The transparent proxy is quite difficult to enforce on smartphones and tablets."
"The licensing model needs to be more flexible."
"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."
"If a user wants to use it for other devices like mobile or smartphones, this product isn't so reliable."
"The FTD 21 model's Firepower Threat Defense does not have the multi-instance feature for the virtualization with the physical equipment."
"The support for this solution could be improved. We have experienced issues with their SMARTnet support system."
"The tool needs to provide logs. They need to improve firewall threat defense."
"It should have a user-based quota, per-user quota, that can be defined on the appliance."
"The accuracy could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in streamlining policies. So what happens is that when you apply a specific Netskope policy, you never know the kind of content it will automatically block, or it will allow."
"Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway needs to integrate IoT, which can help to control devices."
"The stability of the solution to be very good. It is not the best and could improve but it is better than other solutions, such as Forcepoint."
"Cost competitiveness is its area of improvement. They will have to figure out how can they strategically price it because there are a few players in the game who have been doing it for a long time. They will have to figure out how to go to market on the pricing."
"The solution needs to improve its on-premise detection technique."
"The initial setup is a bit complex in that it takes a lot of time. In order to get the product to work as you need it to, there is a lot of configuration required."
"The solution could improve the features for Zero Trust Network Access. They should add more security components to that module."
More Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Web Security Appliance is ranked 9th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 29 reviews while Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is ranked 13th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 13 reviews. Cisco Web Security Appliance is rated 7.8, while Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Web Security Appliance writes "Ensures security for remote workers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway writes "Offer capability to create policy groups aligned with specific requirements for users, groups, and locations". Cisco Web Security Appliance is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiProxy, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Skyhigh Security, whereas Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Symantec Proxy, Cisco Umbrella, Fortinet FortiGate SWG, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and FortiSASE . See our Cisco Web Security Appliance vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway 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.