We performed a comparison between Cisco Web Security Appliance and McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service 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 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."
"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 deployment process is very simple."
"I would recommend this solution to others."
"It also allows you to decrypt SSL traffic, and that's a really important feature as well, which is something I also configured."
"The technical support is good. It is reactive and the documentation is very specific and very useful."
"Cisco Web Security Appliance has very good security benefits for any company and is easy to integrate."
"It's a scalable product."
"What we liked best about it was the ability to apply policy to either a user ID or an IP-based network."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The user interface is easy to configure."
"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."
"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."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"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"
"Technical support needs to be improved because they take a very long time and there is no communication or notification."
"Setting up Cisco Web Security Appliance is highly complex and it takes about a week. We have to connect it to the Active Directory and configure all the policies for end users. It takes a long time to configure rules for our company data like port forwarding and separating the public and local components."
"The transparent proxy is quite difficult to enforce on smartphones and tablets."
"The tool needs to improve cloud-based decryption."
"They need a better graphical interface, and they need a better ISE mechanism."
"This solution could be more secure."
"If a user wants to use it for other devices like mobile or smartphones, this product isn't so reliable."
"As Cisco Web Security Appliance is eight years old, though it's simple to access its UI, the UI needs a little bit of updating. If it could be more interactive similar to the latest gen solutions, that would improve the product. Adding a few more integrations would also make Cisco Web Security Appliance better."
"The product should provide more integrations."
Cisco Web Security Appliance is ranked 10th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 29 reviews while McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service is ranked 24th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 1 review. Cisco Web Security Appliance is rated 7.8, while McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service is rated 10.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Web Security Appliance writes "Ensures security for remote workers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service writes "A scalable and user-friendly tool that provides an easy-to-configure user interface". Cisco Web Security Appliance is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiProxy, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway, whereas McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service is most compared with Symantec Proxy, Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway, Fortinet FortiGate SWG, Fortinet FortiProxy and Skyhigh Security.
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.