We performed a comparison between Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway, and McAfee Web Protection [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about RSA, BitSight, AuditBoard and others in IT Vendor Risk Management."I prefer BitSight due to its patch management capabilities. The score is a valuable feature. I have contacted the customer support through e-mail and their response rate is fast. I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"The product helps us identify the vulnerabilities of internet-facing applications."
"Its customer service team responds quickly."
"Offers open ports from an external point of view."
"Most valuable features are content filtering and monitoring."
"The antiviral sandboxing."
"The tool categorizes the user profiles which is very comfortable."
"The feature that I find to be most valuable is the flexibility of the single endpoint."
"One of the main features I have found the solution to be efficient."
"Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway does most of its job well, but I especially like its data security feature."
"Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway has improved our organization through its ease of use."
"Reporting and automatic updates of website categorization."
"It's a solution that permits making a granular configuration and it is easier to deploy the same configuration on a lot of devices using the central console. It is the master of the product."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in the configuration for security roles."
"It is functional. It has reduced risk and downtime while also ensuring regulatory compliance, which is critical."
"Provides good accessibility and handles any overload very well."
"The product is quite an effective firewall."
"The most valuable is the blocking of blacklisted sites, a URL that is, either by intelligence or by McAfee, detected as a malicious site."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it protects against threats that are coming from the web."
"It doesn't seem to take too much system bandwidth, and I also like its reporting. Once a month, it gives me a reminder of the activity. It reminds me that the protection is on, and if there are any issues, it summarizes those minor issues. During the month, it only notifies when there is something special."
"Data enrichment is the major issue."
"At the moment, when the vulnerability score decreases, it remains the same for quite a while, even though issues are resolved in 24 hours."
"The solution’s benchmarking should be improved."
"Its factor analysis feature could be better."
"There may be room for improvement in the methodology for identifying findings, as occasional errors occur on the technical side."
"The initial setup was complex."
"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."
"We are using a V10000 G3 appliance. It is just a proxy. It is just HTTP, FTP, and HTTPS. Now, as our website has developed and we are using rich time-connectivity protocols, the proxy doesn't have the ability to work with these protocols. It would be nice if the UDP feature was there for it to filter UDP traffic. It needs firewall capabilities for UDP filtering. Its upgrades can be quite complex, and they don't always go as per the plan. Its reporting could be a bit more granular."
"I would suggest focusing on improving the GUI's stability, especially when implementing new filters or patches."
"I'd like to see the solution improve the banded optimization to offer more bandwidth control, similar to what is on offer with Blue Coat."
"The technical support team's response time could be improved."
"The firewall doesn't have any features because some customers are requesting they will install the firewall without licensing. At this time we cannot go further without licensing. Licensing is a must with Forcepoint Web Security firewalls."
"An area for improvement would be the classification of websites - it can take a long time for new websites to be classified."
"We used a consultant to help us set it up. Unfortunately, he was not that good. They were out of McAfee people. He was a consultant and knew the product, but he was not a McAfee person. How they managed it and how they worked was not straightforward."
"The manufacturerers should have more transparancy about exactly what is getting filtered when you use the product and why."
"In McAfee Web Protection there are gaps in the security design, in the overall architecture, the gaps need to be fixed."
"The True Key version for mobile phones should be improved. The password manager is not as seamless as on the desktop. Once implemented, on the desktop, when you go to the site, it automatically fills and connects you, whereas, on the mobile phone, it doesn't do that quite seamlessly. You need to open the True Key application and then select the password you want to use. It then opens in the browser. There are fewer steps in the desktop version as compared to the mobile version."
"The solution should be more proactive in regards to sending you updates."
"The configuration could be simplified because it is more complex to make the configuration on McAfee. What can be improved is the support of the agent on smartphones, IOS or Android. That still now is not available yet."
"Endpoints are lightweight agents, eating too much of the host resources."
"There is a real need to make sure all the updates and improvements are in order to keep the security at top performance to continue defeating threats that come daily."
More Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →