We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and SonicWall CFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about TitanHQ, Forcepoint, Barracuda Networks and others in Web Content Filtering."The antiviral sandboxing."
"I have found the simplicity of the solution valuable. The dashboard and reports are good as well."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"It's stable and reliable."
"It’s pretty stable after you get up and running."
"Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway has improved our organization through its ease of use."
"Provides good visibility and good filtering features."
"The most valuable feature of Forcepoint Web Security is creating the easy to install further policies that are deployed through the Forcepoint security manual at some stage. Just drag and drop and the policies are there."
"It is very stable."
"The reporting could be improved."
"We are using a V10000 G3 appliance. It is just a proxy. It is just HTTP, FTP, and HTTPS. Now, as our website has developed and we are using rich time-connectivity protocols, the proxy doesn't have the ability to work with these protocols. It would be nice if the UDP feature was there for it to filter UDP traffic. It needs firewall capabilities for UDP filtering. Its upgrades can be quite complex, and they don't always go as per the plan. Its reporting could be a bit more granular."
"What's missing in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is a specific level of micro-control on protocols or devices, for example, where you can control a particular user or user device."
"The availability of clusters is limited, and the product is very unstable. The development team is slow as well."
"In the on-premises version, I don't like the deployment and structuring of the device."
"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."
"A feature we wish to see addressed in the next release of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway involves its administration."
"To access the root of the product for troubleshooting you must have a data engineer. This is the big issue with Forcepoint. The support community is not good."
"Malware, scanning, capture, and integration should be included with the content filtering."
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Content Filtering with 47 reviews while SonicWall CFS is ranked 5th in Web Content Filtering. Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8, while SonicWall CFS is rated 0.0. 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 SonicWall CFS writes "Reliable content filtering but need more traffic control". Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG, whereas SonicWall CFS is most compared with Barracuda Web Security and Filtering.
See our list of best Web Content Filtering vendors.
We monitor all Web Content Filtering 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.