We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Kaspersky Security for Internet 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 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."
"I like the product's scalability and stability."
"The most valuable feature for me in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is URL filtering, though all other features of the product are okay as well."
"The spam filter is very effective."
"Secure Web Gateway's most valuable features are firewall blocking and anti-malware scanning."
"This is a highly detailed product with very good key features."
"It allowed our company to not worry about the security of a page, but talk more about the content and the productivity of specific types of web categories."
"The GUI is quite nice."
"Real-time analytics."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the antivirus and child protection features."
"The most valuable aspect for me is the user-friendly interface."
"I would recommend it to others as it's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is the antivirus."
"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"
"Overall the software is occupying too much memory space. If they could remedy that, it would be a better experience, because today Windows is occupying too much memory space as well (in terms of the RAM), and this software has also started occupying all the memory. Due to this, I have less space for my other office products and data. I can't, for example, operate a huge Excel sheet or other datasets."
"It has a problem with tablets and the iPhone. It's not filtering on these platforms. It filters on Windows but not iOS or Android."
"The reporting could be improved."
"It's the support that's the problem because that's a different question from the product itself — it's the Achilles heel."
"There should be more hardware models available and the application control could improve."
"The reporting must be improved."
"The automation lifecycle, integration, and export functionality could all be improved."
"It takes 20 to 30 minutes for policy replication."
"The initial setup of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is complex. The full deployment took approximately two weeks."
"I believe the absence of a procedure is the main issue."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the pricing."
"The customer support of the product is an area with shortcomings where improvements are required."
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 6th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 47 reviews while Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is ranked 16th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 6 reviews. Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8, while Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway writes "Simple to set up, reliable, and offers great reporting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway writes "Is easy to use and is scalable". Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG, whereas Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, AhnLab V3 Internet Security, Zscaler Internet Access and Quad9. See our Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway vs. Kaspersky Security for Internet 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.