We performed a comparison between Check Point Web Gateway and Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway 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."
"You don't have to wander around the tool since it is very simple. You can grab and get a hold of the tool very quickly."
"The implementation of this tool was straightforward."
"It is very stable."
"Application control gives IT teams an opportunity to set suitable policies that can be used by all teams when coding."
"It can also be used as a reverse proxy through the checkpoint."
"It filters the URLs by reputation, denying access to those proven to be harmful and inspecting those which haven't been flagged yet to detect threats before the user can enter it."
"It offers good security and we use it when we want to implement the best security in an organization due to the fact that it gives us broader visibility."
"One of its rather outstanding capabilities is its ability to add an extra layer of protection to our company's internal network."
"It has got a really good URL categorization database. It is simple to set up. It is also easy to use and quite intuitive. It has got a nice utility for troubleshooting."
"Secure Web Gateway's most valuable features are firewall blocking and anti-malware scanning."
"The GUI is quite nice."
"This is a highly detailed product with very good key features."
"SWG allows me to track internet usage patterns, helping optimize bandwidth and understand how much time each employee spends online."
"The spam filter is very effective."
"The product's user management is an area where my company does not face any challenges."
"Giving visibility to people's actions in the network, while keeping attackers out: across data centers, offices, branches, and the cloud."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"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."
"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"
"The support must be faster."
"I would like to be able to see an integration with centralized management services."
"There is room for improvement in support because the solution needs multiple regions to reach certain features and validations."
"Perhaps the latency in the administrative part of the portal would be a point of improvement."
"I would like to see improvement in the tool's availability."
"There should be an improvement in interface integration."
"Some documents needed to implement with the best practices are difficult to understand, take longer than expected to apply, and sometimes even require support."
"The learning curve is complex for new users."
"The availability of clusters is limited, and the product is very unstable. The development team is slow as well."
"In the on-premises version, I don't like the deployment and structuring of the device."
"What's missing in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is a specific level of micro-control on protocols or devices, for example, where you can control a particular user or user device."
"Stability needs some improvement, we have on occasion experienced some delay when it is synchronized."
"The technical support team's response time could be improved."
"We have a lot of false positives, which is one area that can be improved."
"Allow for faster exemption of websites or the ability to reclassify websites."
"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."
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Web Gateway is ranked 11th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 21 reviews while Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 5th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 47 reviews. Check Point Web Gateway is rated 8.4, while Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point Web Gateway writes "Provides secure perimeter defense and scalability for the banking industry". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway writes "Simple to set up, reliable, and offers great reporting". Check Point Web Gateway is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, Symantec Proxy and Cisco Web Security Appliance, whereas Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG. See our Check Point Web Gateway vs. Forcepoint 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.