We performed a comparison between Cisco ScanSafe Web Security SaaS 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 most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"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 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 cyber security features they offer are most trusted"
"It is valuable to be able to block whole categories or groups at one time."
"The web security is great."
"The policies are category-based, so knowledge of another content URL is not compulsory."
"Real-time analytics."
"Real-time category protection."
"Secure Web Gateway's most valuable features are firewall blocking and anti-malware scanning."
"It's stable and reliable."
"In terms of functionality, Forcepoint is the best web proxy available."
"There is some sandboxing available, which is quite useful."
"I have found the web content filtering and malware filter the most valuable."
"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 solution is not supported well because it is legacy."
"The licensing could be better."
"Setup is not that difficult, but it really requires proper technical training."
"I would suggest focusing on improving the GUI's stability, especially when implementing new filters or patches."
"An area for improvement would be the classification of websites - it can take a long time for new websites to be classified."
"Allow for faster exemption of websites or the ability to reclassify websites."
"The automation lifecycle, integration, and export functionality could all be improved."
"The performance issues in the product are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"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."
"It's the support that's the problem because that's a different question from the product itself — it's the Achilles heel."
"Stability needs some improvement, we have on occasion experienced some delay when it is synchronized."
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ScanSafe Web Security SaaS is ranked 29th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 3 reviews while Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 6th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 47 reviews. Cisco ScanSafe Web Security SaaS is rated 7.4, while Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco ScanSafe Web Security SaaS writes "Easy to implement with good security and scanning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway writes "Simple to set up, reliable, and offers great reporting". Cisco ScanSafe Web Security SaaS is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, whereas Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG. See our Cisco ScanSafe Web Security SaaS vs. Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway report.
See our list of best Secure Web Gateways (SWG) vendors and best Internet Security 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.