We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and McAfee Web Protection [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Zscaler, TitanHQ and others in Internet Security."Email Sandbox, DLP and Proxy."
"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 product's user management is an area where my company does not face any challenges."
"The tool categorizes the user profiles which is very comfortable."
"The spam filter is very effective."
"One of the main features I have found the solution to be efficient."
"The initial setup is easy. It's not difficult."
"Transparent Mode: Since we have multiple sites and roaming users, it has helped us in deploying the proxy to users without having to push any configurations to end users."
"The stability has a good standard right now."
"The most valuable features of McAfee Web Protection are the reporter, and you have the option to have an agent installed in the notebooks or on the mobiles. You are able to have the same policies inside and outside of your organization which is a benefit."
"It's a solution that permits making a granular configuration and it is easier to deploy the same configuration on a lot of devices using the central console. It is the master of the product."
"The solution does what it's meant to do."
"It is functional. It has reduced risk and downtime while also ensuring regulatory compliance, which is critical."
"The solution is not too expensive. It's affordable."
"Provides good accessibility and handles any overload very well."
"The most valuable is the blocking of blacklisted sites, a URL that is, either by intelligence or by McAfee, detected as a malicious site."
"It takes 20 to 30 minutes for policy replication."
"In the on-premises version, I don't like the deployment and structuring of the device."
"Security of browsing."
"The solution should be better able to support itself and operate faster. Sometimes the technical support team takes too long to respond."
"Managing the endpoint for both DLP and web security should be simplified."
"The availability of clusters is limited, and the product is very unstable. The development team is slow as well."
"The initial setup can be complex."
"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."
"We need a better customer experience and more flexibility in the product."
"There is a real need to make sure all the updates and improvements are in order to keep the security at top performance to continue defeating threats that come daily."
"The solution could always use more security features. If it was more secure, it would be an even stronger product."
"The manufacturerers should have more transparancy about exactly what is getting filtered when you use the product and why."
"The initial setup could be simplified, there is a learning curve during the implementation."
"The True Key version for mobile phones should be improved. The password manager is not as seamless as on the desktop. Once implemented, on the desktop, when you go to the site, it automatically fills and connects you, whereas, on the mobile phone, it doesn't do that quite seamlessly. You need to open the True Key application and then select the password you want to use. It then opens in the browser. There are fewer steps in the desktop version as compared to the mobile version."
"I'm not sure if the solution itself is cloud-based or not. If it isn't they really need to begin to develop that out a bit."
"Endpoints are lightweight agents, eating too much of the host resources."
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 4th in Internet Security with 47 reviews while McAfee Web Protection [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Internet Security with 16 reviews. Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8, while McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is rated 8.2. 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 McAfee Web Protection [EOL] writes "Secure, reasonably priced, and performs well". Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG, whereas McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is most compared with .
See our list of best Internet Security vendors and best Web Content Filtering vendors.
We monitor all Internet Security 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.