We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and NetScaler Secure Web Gateway [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 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."
"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 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."
"The spam filter is very effective."
"Email Sandbox, DLP and Proxy."
"This is a highly detailed product with very good key features."
"The customization and control of URL filtering and the integration with other Forcepoint solutions are great features."
"Real-time analytics."
"The GUI is quite nice."
"Ease of updating the latest hotfixes and patches on the appliance."
"Most valuable features are content filtering and monitoring."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is dual authentication, which is good from a security perspective."
"It is absolutely stable."
"From my point of view, this solution is stable and we haven't had any real issues."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"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"
"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."
"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 initial setup can be complex."
"The automation lifecycle, integration, and export functionality could all be improved."
"The product needs to have more mobility."
"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."
"It's the support that's the problem because that's a different question from the product itself — it's the Achilles heel."
"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."
"Database synchronization failures"
"It would be helpful if this solution would collect information about people who are connecting from external devices so that we can rate their user experience in using the virtual desktops."
"I would like to see more monitoring, and there could always be deeper information to find out where issues are."
"In terms of improvement, it should be easier to manage. We have a small team and don't have much expertise, we need things that are easy to manage."
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
More NetScaler Secure Web Gateway [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 6th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 47 reviews while NetScaler Secure Web Gateway [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Secure Web Gateways (SWG). Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8, while NetScaler Secure Web Gateway [EOL] is rated 7.4. 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 NetScaler Secure Web Gateway [EOL] writes "A stable web access solution and reverse proxy that is secured with dual authentication". Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG, whereas NetScaler Secure Web Gateway [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.