We performed a comparison between Infoblox BloxOne Threat Defense and Symantec Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Domain Name System (DNS) Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is policy redirecting and security reports."
"When it comes to helping to detect DNS threats, BloxOne is good on all fronts. The number of false positives is very low, close to none. More than once it has detected new names or lookalike names and protected us and saved us from bad characters."
"Our ability to detect data exfiltration was minimal before Infoblox and the cloud portal was instituted for us. In terms of DNS security as a whole, we had some capability with our firewalls, but this is a lot more specialized because we're sending all of our DNS requests to Infoblox. I'd say we improved 100%."
"Infoblox BloxOne Threat Defense furthers the existing security posture rather than replacing or trying to replace any existing products."
"The dossier feature is perfect for starting an investigation."
"The most valuable feature is blocklisting. It's good at what I like to describe as the "silly side cases." We have this annoying security architecture that says we must do this, that, and the other, so we try to make it easier on ourselves."
"Using the reporting, we can tell that we have gained an extra layer of protection. Just by looking at it, we can see what is being blocked before it even makes it to the firewall. It is definitely working."
"BloxOne provides automatic sharing of network context data, which affects our speed of threat response and provide real-time threat intelligence. Our security operations needs this to do their work. It makes us feel safer."
"It is easy to manage. The graphical user interface is quite easy to navigate, and we don't have any difficulty in using it. It is a good solution."
"It's nice to have it in the cloud where we can pull the reporting together for it so we can see what's happening in machines at different locations."
"The most valuable feature is the endpoint security."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable features are the website blocking capability and SSL interception."
"In terms of most valuable features, I like the ICAP capability and URL filtering the most."
"It offers an easy initial setup."
"It is quite scalable. If a user needs to do more deployments, they can just add them."
"The initial setup is not a simple "click-click-next" installation. It requires some level of experience ."
"The integration of threat intelligence with other solutions is challenging. If I want to expose threat intelligence, I cannot do it via taxi services. I have to call the API, but the customers are not into creating the APIs. The integration of embedded threat intelligence with other platforms should be better. Infoblox should work on this, and it should be easier for the end user to integrate it. It is very easy to deploy this solution. We should be able to integrate it with other platforms, such as the Next-Generation Firewall, with the same ease."
"Within the past two years, we discovered certain bugs in their products. The resolution of these bugs took a little too much time, especially if our production environment is down for a certain amount of time, then we are losing money. That is hard to convey to Infoblox support, e.g., we actually need the system up and running again within two or three hours. The awareness of these so-called production down incidents is not really easy to convey."
"The setup was horrible. About a year ago, Infoblox made us re-enroll all our on-prem DNS servers by a set date to a specific version, or it would stop working. I told my colleague, "Oh, here, we have to upgrade the servers and reconnect them to the CSP." That did not go well at all."
"The research side and the reporting side need improvement. Both of those are items on the menu. They could use a little bit of cleanup to make their respective information more easily understood."
"The documentation needs to be improved because there are a lot of different models that it can be deployed in, and it's somewhat confusing determining what you need and how to set it up to best cover your use cases."
"The product is slightly more expensive compared to other DNS solutions."
"The product could be cheaper."
"It needs to be easier to set up rules for what sites it should allow or not allow us in certain areas of our computer for programs. It would also be nice really nice to have it give you better information about what it's finding. A lot of the alerts we get are very difficult to understand what it's actually telling you. It's too generic."
"The major challenge is their support. The support from Broadcom is quite poor. It takes forever for them to get back to you, and when they get back to you, they ask you for so much information, which makes it more difficult. That's the only problem I have with Broadcom. This is one of the reasons why we are switching to another solution. Another reason for switching is that we have a plan to adopt solutions in the cloud so that we can offload the administration efforts to the vendor. In future releases, they can improve its reporting and the process for rules creation. They can also improve Broadcom on things such as security information and event management so that from my same platform, I can carry out functions and probably block websites. Such a feature would be nice. Currently, Broadcom is integrated with McAfee to block access to certain sites automatically. It would be nice if they can expand their integration to IBM Resilient Security Orchestration and Automation Response."
"The reports could be better."
"Depending on the severity of the issue, I think they can be a bit slow - a few days for the low severity cases, but for the severe cases normally they contact you back in a couple of hours."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"It's not user-friendly, and we end up making too many phone calls to get things fixed."
"Difficult and time-consuming to deploy and update."
"The platform’s data center is not capable of managing most of the traffic."
More Infoblox BloxOne Threat Defense Pricing and Cost Advice →
Infoblox BloxOne Threat Defense is ranked 6th in Domain Name System (DNS) Security with 15 reviews while Symantec Secure Web Gateway is ranked 33rd in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 10 reviews. Infoblox BloxOne Threat Defense is rated 8.0, while Symantec Secure Web Gateway is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of Infoblox BloxOne Threat Defense writes "Improved the way that we look at data as it comes in and out". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Secure Web Gateway writes "Easy to set up with good features and helpful support". Infoblox BloxOne Threat Defense is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Palo Alto Networks DNS Security, Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection, Zscaler Internet Access and Fortinet FortiGate SWG, whereas Symantec Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Zscaler Internet Access, Skyhigh Security and Fortinet FortiGate SWG. See our Infoblox BloxOne Threat Defense vs. Symantec Secure Web Gateway report.
We monitor all Domain Name System (DNS) 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.