We performed a comparison between Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management and Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about RSA, BitSight, AuditBoard and others in IT Vendor Risk Management."The solution is user-friendly."
"Its customer service team responds quickly."
"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."
"Offers open ports from an external point of view."
"The product helps us identify the vulnerabilities of internet-facing applications."
"The product's user management is an area where my company does not face any challenges."
"Real-time category protection."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to allow or block sites by category."
"One of the main features I have found the solution to be efficient."
"The most valuable feature for me in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is URL filtering, though all other features of the product are okay as well."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The GUI is quite nice."
"SWG allows me to track internet usage patterns, helping optimize bandwidth and understand how much time each employee spends online."
"There may be room for improvement in the methodology for identifying findings, as occasional errors occur on the technical side."
"Its factor analysis feature could be better."
"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."
"Improve detailed guidelines to deploy the transparent proxy to Firefox users."
"The Sandbox solution should be integrated with the NIST to handle whatever new vulnerabilities or new sites are identified as potential threats."
"It's the support that's the problem because that's a different question from the product itself — it's the Achilles heel."
"Security of browsing."
"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 am looking forward to the full integration of the endpoints that they offer for web security and DLP."
"The initial setup can be complex."
"But the deployment could be easier. It might take from one day to three days. Usually, that involves an engineer from the vendor and a working team at the enterprise."
More Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management is ranked 2nd in IT Vendor Risk Management with 5 reviews while Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 6th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 47 reviews. Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management is rated 8.6, while Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management writes "User-friendly solution with robust patch management capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway writes "Simple to set up, reliable, and offers great reporting". Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management is most compared with SecurityScorecard, RiskRecon, Microsoft Secure Score, UpGuard Vendor Risk and Tenable Lumin, whereas Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG.
We monitor all IT Vendor Risk Management 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.