We performed a comparison between Blue Coat Advanced Web & Cloud Security [EOL] and Symantec Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks and others in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)."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 solution is stable."
"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."
"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 content filters and SSL encryption are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The categorize formula is very helpful. Previously, we used the Cisco solution, where we could not choose how sites are categorized. Blue Coat updated a lot of sites I categorized. There are other valuable features as well, such as block by location, block by IP, allow by IP, and block by user name, domain, or group domain."
"The solution is very stable. In four years we have not seen any issues with the product."
"It is easy to manage. The graphical user interface is quite easy to navigate, and we don't have any difficulty in using it. It is a good solution."
"It offers an easy initial setup."
"It's nice to have it in the cloud where we can pull the reporting together for it so we can see what's happening in machines at different locations."
"It is quite scalable. If a user needs to do more deployments, they can just add them."
"In terms of most valuable features, I like the ICAP capability and URL filtering the most."
"The most valuable feature is the endpoint security."
"It has a faster implementation process compared to other products."
"The most valuable features are the website blocking capability and SSL interception."
"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 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"
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"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 console visibility and the performance impact on the internet needs improvement."
"Java does not completely work. We are dependent on Java and when the current console does not run with Java, it is a problem for us."
"Every customer has to perform a manual backup, and automatic backing up is needed."
"It needs to be easier to set up rules for what sites it should allow or not allow us in certain areas of our computer for programs. It would also be nice really nice to have it give you better information about what it's finding. A lot of the alerts we get are very difficult to understand what it's actually telling you. It's too generic."
"Depending on the severity of the issue, I think they can be a bit slow - a few days for the low severity cases, but for the severe cases normally they contact you back in a couple of hours."
"The reports could be better."
"The major challenge is their support. The support from Broadcom is quite poor. It takes forever for them to get back to you, and when they get back to you, they ask you for so much information, which makes it more difficult. That's the only problem I have with Broadcom. This is one of the reasons why we are switching to another solution. Another reason for switching is that we have a plan to adopt solutions in the cloud so that we can offload the administration efforts to the vendor. In future releases, they can improve its reporting and the process for rules creation. They can also improve Broadcom on things such as security information and event management so that from my same platform, I can carry out functions and probably block websites. Such a feature would be nice. Currently, Broadcom is integrated with McAfee to block access to certain sites automatically. It would be nice if they can expand their integration to IBM Resilient Security Orchestration and Automation Response."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"There's a need for increased firewall functionality and capabilities. I'm not seeing a competitive Symantec cloud product. Specifically, functionalities with security as filtering from the cloud. I am aware that there is a product, a proxy in the cloud but I have compared it with other vendors and I don't find it that powerful. I think the worst thing that we're experiencing is very poor and inadequate technical support. It seems to me that tech support engineers aren't qualified to fulfill their job duties."
"It's not user-friendly, and we end up making too many phone calls to get things fixed."
"Difficult and time-consuming to deploy and update."
More Blue Coat Advanced Web & Cloud Security [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Blue Coat Advanced Web & Cloud Security [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) while Symantec Secure Web Gateway is ranked 33rd in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 10 reviews. Blue Coat Advanced Web & Cloud Security [EOL] is rated 6.4, while Symantec Secure Web Gateway is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of Blue Coat Advanced Web & Cloud Security [EOL] writes "Easy to change categories and has many ways to filter". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Secure Web Gateway writes "Easy to set up with good features and helpful support". Blue Coat Advanced Web & Cloud Security [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Symantec Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Zscaler Internet Access, Skyhigh Security and Fortinet FortiGate SWG.
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.
