Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Forcepoint ONE vs Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

iboss
Sponsored
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
12th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (4th), Web Content Filtering (4th), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (8th), ZTNA as a Service (12th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (10th)
Forcepoint ONE
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
22nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (11th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (20th)
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
7th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

Matt Crockford - PeerSpot reviewer
It's easy to roll out, and their understanding of our business made it seamless
One aspect we value about iboss is its simplicity. Their customer service is brilliant, and they are super responsive and knowledgeable. It's easy to roll out, and their understanding of our business made it seamless. We were impressed by the solution's mental health function, which can detect if someone needs help. It scans what users are browsing and flags warning signs so we can check to see if they are okay. We've had to use it a couple of times. The user interface is highly intuitive. Our IT team picked it up with minimal training. It's arranged so that it's easy to find where things are. Another advantage is the single pane of glass console, which gives you visibility into what's happening. We're not fully there yet because we haven't implemented zero trust, but we're excited about the possibilities from the demos we've seen. We launched a POC of iboss' ChatGPT Risk Protection feature two weeks ago. AI is a great tool, but you need to be careful what you put into it. My biggest fear is employees inputting sensitive corporate information or customer PII data into one of these chatbots. I was impressed by our trial of the feature. It's exactly what we wanted. Now, when a user goes to ChatGPT, there's a banner warning them not to share information, and we can block conversations containing customer data like bank details and email addresses. I don't want to stop people from using it, but we need visibility. We've only tried it on a test group of 15 people. You can configure it to look for specific keywords or integrate it with your DLP policy if you have that configured
Edwin Eze-Osiago - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to deploy, stable, and scalable
Bitglass integration with some IDP providers needs improvement. Currently, the solution is not compatible with Azure AD for third-party authentication. The fraud proxy in the SmartEdge agent is not compatible with Forcepoint DLP or a web hybrid agent. I would like the developers to consolidate multiple agents across systems for better integration.
Shipra Gupta - PeerSpot reviewer
Simple to set up, reliable, and offers great reporting
On the DLP, we are on version 8.9.1, and on the Web Gateway, we are on version 8.5.4. We are using both on-premises and cloud deployments. We are integrators. I am mainly dealing in Forcepoint, including Forcepoint Web Gateway, Forcepoint DLP, and a little bit of Forcepoint Email as well. The presales part of the onboarding process has to be very, very proper. Whatever requirements the users are looking for, that should be put on paper, however. Otherwise, if they're expecting something else and the solution is providing something else, this sometimes creates an issue at a later date. Clients need to know what they are getting into. I’d rate the solution eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Our primary use case for this product is DLP,"
"The iboss system is highly reliable. The false positive rates are small compared to some other systems we've experienced through other partner agencies who use competing solutions."
"iboss is easy to use despite its complexity. Multiple engineers manage it, but it's significantly more straightforward to administer than traditional VPNs and web proxies."
"Valuable features: Within the filter: Controls (Web categories, applications, and Allow/Block list) and Network (local Subnets). Within the reporter: Logs (Event Log) and Reports."
"iboss has significantly lowered the number of security incidents. It is crazy how much it blocks and how much it is aware of the outside danger."
"Granular setup, which was able to set different levels of filters using the OUs in the AD."
"The security aspect of the solution, particularly the malware behind it, is excellent. That's something that really helped us out. It's not just a simple proxy that just blocks the insights of potential threats that come on behind it. They do malware detection and that helps us a lot."
"iboss is pretty scalable. They provide good support. The case managers you work with to coordinate what you need are pretty good."
"The most valuable features of Forcepoint include Zero Trust Network Access and remote user protection for private applications."
"The core CASB solution is the most valuable part. It allows us to put policies in place around which devices can log into our cloud applications. We have a policy that states that only company devices can access these cloud applications."
"We are able to verify what is getting saved out onto the cloud. It allows us to have some DLP rules, since we have to be HIPAA compliant. If some personal health information has been uploaded to Office 365, then we are able to detect that sort of thing and account for it. We have set up rules to prevent people from doing that."
"The initial setup was straightforward, which was a huge win. That mostly goes to the fact that they are agentless. We didn't have to sit there deploying thousands of agents and all the things that go along with that type of deployment. We were up and running very quickly."
"The biggest thing that I like about this product is that it's easy to use and teach. When we have somebody new starting to work with the product, it's easy to teach them. It's also easy to use the product as it does so much."
"The setup is relatively straightforward."
"The solution is very good when it comes to securing us against data leakage, because of the other proxy. It also has API scanning or data at rest. It inspects data in motion, which is the proxy, and then it has the data at rest, which is the API scanning. We can inspect for anything we want: file fingerprinting, PHI-sensitive data, PCI-sensitive data. It does not matter. We can usually find it and block it in transit and do our remediation with it. It could either be block, encrypt, or allow and watermark the file to follow it and see where it goes. It allows for those different scenarios."
"The platform's feature that has been most beneficial for our web security is its capability to replicate rules."
"In terms of performance, Forcepoint stands out because it is more scalable than any other solution. It can extend to different types of boxes and integrate well with other platforms and vendors. And it doesn't need to have the same kind of box or throughput to have high availability."
"Most valuable features are content filtering and monitoring."
"Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway does most of its job well, but I especially like its data security feature."
"The antiviral sandboxing."
"The feature that I find to be most valuable is the flexibility of the single endpoint."
"The most valuable feature for me in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is URL filtering, though all other features of the product are okay as well."
"The critical role is web URL filtering."
"Secure Web Gateway's most valuable features are firewall blocking and anti-malware scanning."
 

Cons

"File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature."
"SSL decryption: We had issues with learners using apps instead of using web browsers. This type of encryption is tough for any appliance in a BYOD environment."
"Iboss is growing so fast that it is often hard for them to keep up with the challenges."
"Its pricing could be better."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"Sometimes when you call in support, you get someone who is just following a sheet. It feels like a runaround. You feel that you are running into that support wall."
"Sometimes the agent stops working in iboss, and we have to reinstall the agent."
"The area I would like to see improvement in is the ability with in the reporter to navigate directly to the content the user is traversing. It is kind of there, but it's not perfect. Quite frequently, I receive links that lead me to pages with error messages."
"In our environment, when an Active Directory password changes, we tend to have some latency issues with access. It takes about 15 minutes before that password is accessible through Bitglass after the change. That would be the major thing I see as a negative."
"We encounter challenges in determining whether certain features for blocking certain file types or preventing automatic downloads are functioning correctly."
"One area for improvement in Forcepoint ONE is that you'll need more training to install the solution yourself. I practiced in a laboratory and I needed more technical information to do the installation."
"Initially, we had some challenges that Bitglass resolved quickly. The challenges were around communication. There didn't seem like there was the right level of communication within the Bitglass organization. Once we brought the issues up at a higher level, then they were resolved."
"Their new SASE (secure access service edge) product would have been the one thing I would have requested. Now that they have that platform, I'd like to see it as integrated and seamless as possible with the core product. That's what they're working towards and that's where we're seeing the advancements."
"Areas for improvement for the platform include addressing scalability and architecture concerns, especially for large deployments involving more than 500 or 1,000 users."
"Integration into different multi-factor authentication tools. On their page, they tout Duo, but I don't use Duo. I use another vendor. Not that they don't interact, but it takes a little bit more doing. Any amount of efficiencies here would help."
"Bitglass integration with some IDP providers needs improvement."
"The solution has complexity with the databases, and we have to manually clear old data logs."
"They are gearing towards a cloud-based platform for easier management and implementation."
"Allow for faster exemption of websites or the ability to reclassify websites."
"The automation lifecycle, integration, and export functionality could all be improved."
"The technical support needs to be improved."
"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."
"An area for improvement would be the classification of websites - it can take a long time for new websites to be classified."
"Improve detailed guidelines to deploy the transparent proxy to Firefox users."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
"It is expensive compared to one of its competitors."
"It is not expensive, and it is also not cheap. iboss is priced right in the sweet spot for the number of features it offers."
"The product is reasonably priced compared to other vendors. I rate the pricing a two or three."
"When considering only the cost, the solution may appear to be costly; however, when evaluated in terms of commercial value, Bitglass is not expensive."
"The licensing cost for Forcepoint ONE would depend on the features, but the pricing is very competitive here in Brazil. The solution offers a good price, and I would rate it a three or a four in terms of pricing. I don't have information on whether there are additional costs apart from the standard licensing fees for Forcepoint ONE."
"We have our pricing by user. We do our pricing agreements annually. There are also additional costs for maintenance."
"There is training involved. If you're going to add more people to it, such as cross train more of your group, there's a cost. Other than that, that's it. We have paid exactly what the invoices have said. We signed a three-year contract and not gone above it."
"Typically, the longer you price forward, the better off you're going to be. They have been very willing to work with us on pricing."
"The pricing depends upon the number of users."
"The solution's pricing is competitive."
"It is quite expensive."
"Forcepoint's pricing is moderate."
"It is a well-priced option."
"Overall, I am not aware of the option to pay for one time use of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway."
"Licensing is flexible. License pricing information is based on the customer, their environment, and on the future approach."
"The solution is priced a little high compare to similar solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about iboss?
Content filtering is the most useful feature of iboss.
What needs improvement with iboss?
I have the same complaint about them that I have about other software companies. Sometimes when you call in support, ...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
We are a PreK-12 public school district, and we use iboss to filter internet content for our students at home and sta...
What do you like most about Forcepoint ONE?
The platform's feature that has been most beneficial for our web security is its capability to replicate rules.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint ONE?
The product is reasonably priced compared to other vendors. I rate the pricing a two or three.
What needs improvement with Forcepoint ONE?
The solution's integration with other products needs improvement.
What do you like most about Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway?
The product's user management is an area where my company does not face any challenges.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway?
The price for Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is normal, rated around five to six out of ten.
What needs improvement with Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway?
Improvements in the analysis dashboard should allow the retrieval of more detailed information about user utilization...
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Bitglass
Forcepoint SWG, Websense Web Security, Forcepoint TRITON
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

More than 4,000 global enterprises trust the iboss Cloud Platform to support their modern workforces, including a large number of Fortune 50 companies.
UNC-Charlotte
Adventist Health, Alphawest, Amadori, Anoka County, Compartamos Banco, Davies Turner, EverBank, iGATE, Karlstad Municipality, Lake Michigan Credit Union, Scavolini, Smurfit Kappa, Toyota
Find out what your peers are saying about Forcepoint ONE vs. Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.