We performed a comparison between Cisco Web Security Appliance and Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The Cisco Web Security Appliance is the preferred choice over the Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway due to its more comprehensive features, including SSL decryption, policy framing, and integration with Active Directory. Users praise the technical support for both products, but the Cisco product is considered more stable and user-friendly. The pricing structure of the Cisco product is also seen as more reasonable, with a one-time licensing fee and subscription-based options available, while the Netskope product is deemed expensive and requires the purchase of physical appliances.
"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."
"Cisco is the best in giving technical support. There is no doubt about that."
"The solution provides good web reputation and anti-malware protection."
"I would recommend this solution to others."
"Cisco regularly upgrades features for the customer's security requirements."
"The product is stable."
"The technical support is good. It is reactive and the documentation is very specific and very useful."
"The tool has good Umbrella DNS security."
"What we liked best about it was the ability to apply policy to either a user ID or an IP-based network."
"The solution has some useful features, such as microservices. They have sandboxing that allows the prevention, encryption, and remote browser isolation."
"There are a lot of features, but the groups that are created for the policy groups available with Netskope are already relevant to any industry. So grouping the policies is the easiest part and a valuable feature."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is that everything is on the cloud. It has no on-premise hardware to deal with."
"It is for secure web trafficking, and it is doing what it needs to do. It allows customers to consolidate and eliminate multiple technologies onto Netskope and just kind of turn the dial and use more features, such as CASB, VPN. SWG is another feature. You can monitor and govern all the traffic."
"The solution offers good security functionality."
"As Netskope is a cloud-based application, it is possible to analyze and distinguish personal and enterprise instances."
"Prevents data leakage and protects data."
"The solution's CASB, DLP, and threat protection features are very good."
"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"
"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."
"Customer support is good but could be improved."
"The one thing I don't like about Cisco is that they are very much fragmented in terms of providing the complete solution. They keep on breaking their different feature sets into different boxes."
"There are certain shortcomings related to the product's management capabilities, where improvements are required. The solution needs to provide better management of the category of web pages."
"They need a better graphical interface, and they need a better ISE mechanism."
"The solution could improve the graphical user interface. It is not up to the regular standard of what we would expect from Cisco. Additionally, they need to improve the categorization when blocking in the settings. The CLI could have a better view than the graphical user interface but I did not investigate further."
"WSA is lacking firewall features."
"The tool needs to provide logs. They need to improve firewall threat defense."
"Improvement in the solution is required in certain areas where the product does not provide access to its direct end users, who use the portal as an administrator."
"Netskope can only provide the high level related to threats."
"The solution could improve the features for Zero Trust Network Access. They should add more security components to that module."
"The solution lacks a good reporting feature."
"The solution needs to improve its on-premise detection technique."
"They should work on marketing material to put out their work with a little more effort."
"The initial setup is a bit complex in that it takes a lot of time. In order to get the product to work as you need it to, there is a lot of configuration required."
"The accuracy could be improved."
More Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Web Security Appliance is ranked 10th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 28 reviews while Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is ranked 13th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 13 reviews. Cisco Web Security Appliance is rated 7.8, while Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Web Security Appliance writes "Flexible, robust, easy to install, and the technical support is helpful". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway writes "Offer capability to create policy groups aligned with specific requirements for users, groups, and locations". Cisco Web Security Appliance is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiProxy, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Symantec Proxy, whereas Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiGate SWG, Cisco Umbrella, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service. See our Cisco Web Security Appliance vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway report.
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.