We performed a comparison between McAfee Web Protection [EOL] 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 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."
"The solution is not too expensive. It's affordable."
"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 has dependable anti-malware and intrusion prevention features all-in-one package."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in the configuration for security roles."
"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 product is quite an effective firewall."
"It is very stable."
"Lacking filter for spam."
"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."
"The configuration could be simplified because it is more complex to make the configuration on McAfee. What can be improved is the support of the agent on smartphones, IOS or Android. That still now is not available yet."
"Endpoints are lightweight agents, eating too much of the host resources."
"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 manufacturerers should have more transparancy about exactly what is getting filtered when you use the product and why."
"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."
"We need a better customer experience and more flexibility in the product."
"Malware, scanning, capture, and integration should be included with the content filtering."
Earn 20 points
McAfee Web Protection [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Web Content Filtering with 16 reviews while SonicWall CFS is ranked 5th in Web Content Filtering. McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is rated 8.2, while SonicWall CFS is rated 0.0. The top reviewer of McAfee Web Protection [EOL] writes "Secure, reasonably priced, and performs well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall CFS writes "Reliable content filtering but need more traffic control". McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is most compared with , 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.