We performed a comparison between McAfee Web Protection [EOL] and Zscaler Internet Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Zscaler, TitanHQ and others in Internet Security."The stability has a good standard right now."
"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."
"McAfee Web Protection was a good tool because in the olden days when you had to use a proxy tool when browsing the internet. Today the logic has changed slightly, in the sense your protection's taken onto the cloud. You'll exit a predefined gateway on the cloud before your internet browsing happens and therefore you're secured."
"It is functional. It has reduced risk and downtime while also ensuring regulatory compliance, which is critical."
"It doesn't seem to take too much system bandwidth, and I also like its reporting. Once a month, it gives me a reminder of the activity. It reminds me that the protection is on, and if there are any issues, it summarizes those minor issues. During the month, it only notifies when there is something special."
"The most valuable is the blocking of blacklisted sites, a URL that is, either by intelligence or by McAfee, detected as a malicious site."
"The solution is not too expensive. It's affordable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it protects against threats that are coming from the web."
"The solution offers a distributed organization to master and to control all of the endpoints."
"Zscaler Internet Access has helped us reduce the time that we spend managing security policies by about four hours a week. We can use this time to focus on other things, especially the IT team."
"After a proper implementation, the maintenance is very low."
"For our needs, the cloud-native proxy architecture is a very good solution. We are moving away from on-prem appliances and moving more toward cloud-based solutions. Zscaler is a good fit for our strategy. This architecture helps with cyber threats because we inspect most of the traffic and we can see that a lot of threats are stopped directly in the secure web gateway."
"The solution is scalable and stable."
"In terms of management and visibility, there is a single panel where you can configure the policies for your entire organisation worldwide."
"The users are at different locations, and Zscaler helps us to put the organization's central security controls on these roaming users."
"The solution is stable."
"McAfee Web Protection can improve the information provided for hybrid installations in the console. Additionally, having cloud protection would be good."
"We need a better customer experience and more flexibility in the product."
"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."
"In McAfee Web Protection there are gaps in the security design, in the overall architecture, the gaps need to be fixed."
"The initial setup could be simplified, there is a learning curve during the implementation."
"Lacking filter for spam."
"We used a consultant to help us set it up. Unfortunately, he was not that good. They were out of McAfee people. He was a consultant and knew the product, but he was not a McAfee person. How they managed it and how they worked was not straightforward."
"Endpoints are lightweight agents, eating too much of the host resources."
"What could be improved in Zscaler Internet Access is its price. It could be cheaper."
"The interface for administration could be better. They should upgrade the management portal."
"The OS capabilities and WSL support could be improved."
"Do not expect to pay for the service and start using it, like Gmail. Zscaler requires a proper implementation to be done to make it successful."
"Technical support could be better."
"Zscaler does not provide dedicated IPs to each customer. Hence, they share a pool of IPs provided by Zscaler. There is a chance of blacklisting these IPs. I also do not like the multi-management portal."
"Zscaler Internet Access can improve by adding traffic filtering based on the DNS."
"There are some performance issues when we add on additional controls."
McAfee Web Protection [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Internet Security with 16 reviews while Zscaler Internet Access is ranked 2nd in Internet Security with 46 reviews. McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is rated 8.2, while Zscaler Internet Access is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of McAfee Web Protection [EOL] writes "Secure, reasonably priced, and performs well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler Internet Access writes "Provides integrated CASB and file sandboxing but could be less expensive ". McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Zscaler Internet Access is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and FortiSASE .
See our list of best Internet Security 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.