Compare Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. Forcepoint Email Security

Cisco Email Security (ESA) is ranked 1st in Messaging Security with 16 reviews while Forcepoint Email Security is ranked 10th in Messaging Security with 2 reviews. Cisco Email Security (ESA) is rated 8.6, while Forcepoint Email Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Email Security (ESA) writes "Black-listing and white-listing are highly intuitive and easy to do". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Email Security writes "Efficiently protects against malicious email contents, but the reporting and dashboards need improvement". Cisco Email Security (ESA) is most compared with Fortinet FortiMail, Proofpoint Email Protection and FireEye Email Security, whereas Forcepoint Email Security is most compared with Proofpoint Email Protection, Cisco Email Security (ESA) and Fortinet FortiMail. See our Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. Forcepoint Email Security report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. Forcepoint Email Security and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
370,827 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
Anti-Spam and Advanced Malware Protection are the most valuable features... and we also have the option to block Zero-day attacks.We're consolidating two to three arrays down to one which means that our data center footprint has decreased by like 90%. So we're saving 90% of our space, and it also is much better on power and everything else in our data center. And on top of that, the performance is much, much better than our older arrays.The most valuable feature is the performance and compression. The most useful tool is CloudIQ.Initially, the most valuable feature for us was the SenderBase Reputation, because that reduced the number of emails that were even considered by the system by a huge number...We like the in-built features, like the email filtering based on the IP and domain. Cisco has its own blacklisted domains and IPs, which is very good. This filters around 70 percent of emails from spam, and we are seeing fewer false positives with this.The most valuable feature is the different content filters we are using, such as DKIM.It has the IMS engine, Intelligent Multi-Scan engine, and it does a good job, right out-of-the-box, of blocking the vast majority of things that should be blocked.There were detailed logs available. That was a seriously good feature... It turns out these were actually spoof emails that came into our environment. I got to know about them from the log system.

Read more »

All of the filtering features are very nice.The feature I find most valuable is the web, email and DLP integration.

Read more »

Cons
The configuration UI should be made more intuitive. Currently, it takes a while to understand how to do the basic configurations.We've had a couple of little things come up, but for the most part, they've been pretty stable.We have occasionally had hardware problems because we are using an appliance-based solution, but that might change. We may consider going to virtual systems.The solution needs to improve its advanced phishing filters. It is very good at filtering things which have bad reputations. However, when phishing or malicious emails are new or coming from a legitimate source, we don't feel that the solution is working.We would like to see more options for the customization of content filters.It would be nice to have an easier way to check on the health of the system, how stressed these appliances are. Sure, you can do it, but it would be helpful to have an easier way to do it, maybe even at a glance.They could improve the filters. In my time at the company, there were several times we had to contact support to update the filters.One of the things that Cisco could improve on with IronPort is the support. Cisco doesn't really have enough engineers who have full, hands-on knowledge of IronPort. Knowledge of it is not something you can find easily compared to other security appliances.

Read more »

The reporting functionality needs to be improved, as it is not customizable.I would like to see some improvement like cloud application and integration capabilities and the classification part is missing from the DLP.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
It is not that costly. We pay for the solution through a contractor and pay an annual fee.We were using Proofpoint and then we switched to Cisco... reportability was one of the main reasons we switched, but the biggest one was cost. If you can get an equivalent functionality for a better price it's wise to do so. That's what our primary decision came down to: We could get equivalent functionality at a lower price point.There were no other costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.The license was not per user, the license model was per feature. You could choose anti-virus, anti-spam, etc. It was feature-based and charged yearly.Licensing costs depend on how many users there are. It could range between $5 and $7 per month, per user.Pricing depends on your environment and which model you want to buy.In addition to the standard licensing, there is a cost for SMARTnet as well.We do annual licensing for ESA and SMA together, and possibly SmartNet support. Packaged together, the cost is just under $38,000.

Read more »

Licensing is a yearly subscription that is based on the number of users.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Messaging Security solutions are best for your needs.
370,827 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
1st
out of 43 in Messaging Security
Views
9,157
Comparisons
5,774
Reviews
15
Average Words per Review
840
Avg. Rating
8.7
10th
out of 43 in Messaging Security
Views
1,863
Comparisons
1,409
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
525
Avg. Rating
8.0
Top Comparisons
Also Known As
IronPort, Cisco Email SecurityWebsense Email Security
Learn
Cisco
Forcepoint
Overview

Customers of all sizes face the same daunting challenge: email is simultaneously the most important business communication tool and the leading attack vector for security breaches. Cisco Email Security enables users to communicate securely and helps organizations combat Business Email Compromise (BEC), ransomware, advanced malware, phishing, spam, and data loss with a multilayered approach to security.

Forcepoint Email Security gives you the security you need by protecting you against multi-stage advanced threats that often exploit email to penetrate your IT environment. It applies real-time behavioral sandboxing, enterprise-grade DLP and other advanced defense technologies to identify targeted attacks, high-risk users and insider threats. Forcepoint Email Security monitors outbound email to prevent leaks of sensitive information, and it empowers your workers — in the office or on the road — to safely adopt technologies like Microsoft Office 365.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco Email Security (ESA)
Learn more about Forcepoint Email Security
Sample Customers
SUNY Old Westbury, CoxHealth, City of Fullerton, IndraAlphawest, Amadori, AudioNova, Betsson, Confartigianato Vicenza, Davies Turner, iGATE, Lake Michigan Credit Union, Landa Digital Printing, Northern California Bank, Scavolini, Toyota
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Energy/Utilities Company29%
Manufacturing Company14%
Healthcare Company14%
Legal Firm7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Energy/Utilities Company37%
Comms Service Provider16%
Software R&D Company14%
Manufacturing Company5%
No Data Available
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business31%
Midsize Enterprise19%
Large Enterprise50%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business10%
Midsize Enterprise76%
Large Enterprise14%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Email Security (ESA) vs. Forcepoint Email Security and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
370,827 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Messaging Security 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.
Sign Up with Email