We performed a comparison between Cisco Web Security Appliance and Trustwave WebMarshal [EOL] 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)."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."
"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 most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"Cisco Web Security Appliance has very good security benefits for any company and is easy to integrate."
"The product is stable."
"The deployment process is very simple."
"I would recommend this solution to others."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the functions of proxy for the users who use the internet and the security it offers against the not-so-secure web pages."
"The solution provides good web reputation and anti-malware protection."
"The technical support is good. It is reactive and the documentation is very specific and very useful."
"The most valuable feature is that we can use it as a proxy."
"The setup was fairly straightforward. It's just a proxy."
"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 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"
"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 transparent proxy is quite difficult to enforce on smartphones and tablets."
"The reporting needs improvement."
"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."
"The tool needs to provide logs. They need to improve firewall threat defense."
"If a user wants to use it for other devices like mobile or smartphones, this product isn't so reliable."
"We would like to see a security service head, where we can combine all the security into one solution."
"The tool needs to provide logs. They need to improve firewall threat defense."
"The support for this solution could be improved. We have experienced issues with their SMARTnet support system."
"There's no cloud proxy solution. It's purely on premise, it's a cell inspection, but it doesn't allow any sandboxing. It also doesn't do any tunneling inspection or anything like that."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Web Security Appliance is ranked 10th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 29 reviews while Trustwave WebMarshal [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Secure Web Gateways (SWG). Cisco Web Security Appliance is rated 7.8, while Trustwave WebMarshal [EOL] is rated 3.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Web Security Appliance writes "Ensures security for remote workers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trustwave WebMarshal [EOL] writes "No support for cloud or large scale". 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 Trustwave WebMarshal [EOL] is most compared with .
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.