No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Forcepoint ONE vs Menlo Secure 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)
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (6th), ZTNA as a Service (6th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (7th)
Forcepoint ONE
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
13th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (13th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (14th)
Menlo Secure
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
25th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Firewalls (52nd), ZTNA (26th), Cloud Security Remediation (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of iboss is 3.5%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Forcepoint ONE is 1.7%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Menlo Secure is 2.3%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
iboss3.5%
Forcepoint ONE1.7%
Menlo Secure2.3%
Other92.5%
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

Featured Reviews

Ashok Ananthula - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Consultant Proxy Engineering at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Cloud gateway has strengthened remote web security and now needs better Mac and ISP support
The problem our organization had is that iboss failed for the Mac devices. It is not able to give a successful agent for the Mac agents. That is where in 2025, we had to migrate to the Palo Alto-based platform. If your use case is for just Windows laptops,you can consider this platform as an option One issue is the data center resiliency part. In India especially, they are not tied up with the Tier 1 ISPs like Tata or Airtel; they were having Tier 2 ISPs and encountered many issues reaching few major sites that my organization depends on, and they were having problems that they could not fix quickly. They also lack a mechanism to route that traffic within their data center; rather, they ask customers to make a pac file change to route it to Singapore explicitly. It would be better if they route from their backend , i mean even if I send it to India DC, they should be able to route it internally to make that work; however, they fail to do that and ask the customer to route it in the pac file. Another suggestion is that in China, they do not have the proper setup; they used to have numerous problems with slowness and lack of premium circuits in China as well. That leads to multiple sites working slowly with latency-related issues. So the main issue is the ISP-related problems that need to be solved.
reviewer2765397 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Engineer at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Delivers reliable policy control and improves data protection across cloud and endpoints
The best features Forcepoint ONE offers include the DLP engine with predefined policies for common data types that help us determine and use it directly, as well as cloud app control to protect SaaS platforms like Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. We are also helped by the Incident Management Dashboard for quick review and policy tuning, along with integration with Forcepoint Endpoint DLP, allowing us consistent enforcement across devices. The DLP engine and Incident Management Dashboard have made our work much more efficient in daily operations, as detection accuracy reduces the need for manual review, and the centralized dashboard helps us quickly identify which incidents need escalation or policy adjustment. It shortens response time for our clients, allowing their security team to view incidents in real-time, classify them easily, and focus on genuine risks instead of sorting through false positives, and it simplifies reporting and audit preparation since all the relevant data is consolidated in one place. One feature that really stands out for us and our client is the seamless integration between Forcepoint ONE and the on-premise Forcepoint DLP, as it allows consistent data protection policy across both cloud and endpoint environments, making it much easier to manage. Forcepoint ONE has positively impacted our organization by streamlining DLP policy management and reducing time spent on troubleshooting and manual reviews, providing faster compliance reporting for internal needs and compliance with local regulation, and improving visibility into how sensitive data moves across cloud and endpoint environments. Overall, it helps our customers operate more efficiently and confidently in enforcing data protection controls.
reviewer2701794 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head Of Bluechip Enterprise at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees
Provides strong protection and multiple use cases but struggles with market recognition
There aren't specific areas for improvement; however, they're not as well known as the big vendors such as Palo Alto. Menlo Secure is a smaller company with limited resources and funding, which makes it challenging to compete with larger companies such as Palo and Cisco. What can be improved is market awareness and adoption of the technology. When selling it in the channel, regardless of how good the technology might be, success depends more on market adoption and awareness.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Because of iboss, I did not have to assign web filtering tasks to my techs on a daily basis."
"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."
"This product is solid, fairly easy to use, and reliable."
"The solution has massively improved our security posture, giving us full visibility into what our staff does online."
"Iboss is a solution that prevents advanced persistent threats, and has a zero tolerance for attacks."
"From a use-case scenario, what I like the most is the plug-in. I like the fact that we can do the filtering of these devices offsite independent of the network they are connected to, and we do not have to have traffic coming back inside our network."
"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."
"Overall, knowing what I know now, a year and two months later, and having been through this whole Bitglass deployment with the issues that we've had that were not Bitglass' fault, I would still choose the same product today."
"The most valuable features of Forcepoint include Zero Trust Network Access and remote user protection for private applications."
"The platform's feature that has been most beneficial for our web security is its capability to replicate rules."
"It is overall a good solution for securing against data breaches and attacks, but there is no 100 percent guarantee in software."
"The setup is relatively straightforward."
"With everything that I know about Bitglass and working with the organization as a whole, such as meeting the CEO on down through new folks, they have a fantastic culture and ethic when it comes to the customer first."
"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."
"It allows a window into who is sharing what types of data internally and externally."
"Either you have access to something or don't have access to it, and if you do, we can ensure, 100 percent of the time, that there is nothing malicious that is going to impact our system in any way."
"For us, the primary goal is protection on the web, and that's extremely important. We're not using any of the other services at this time. The web part is key to the success of the organization. It gives us the ability to protect. It can isolate. It opens the session in an isolated format so that the code isn't running locally. It is running over in the Menlo environment, not in ours. It is not running on the local computer, whereas if you were to go to a normal website, it would run Java or something else on the local machine and potentially execute the malicious code locally. So, it does give us that level of protection."
"Accessing the internet with a proxy from anywhere is the most valuable feature. It ensures that users are only able to browse legitimate websites. If they happen to go to a legitimate website with a malicious payload, the isolation feature will take care of that."
"The fact that it is a cloud proxy solution is another feature we like. For example, if you acquire a new company, you can use it to protect that new company without the need to install anything physically on their networks."
"This security technology addresses risk and enables people to conduct business without that risk, which is where the ROI is realized."
"We have definitely seen ROI, as we save a ton of money and time because the numerous hits that we were receiving from our security tools prior to implementing them had to all be chased down, dispositioned, and endpoints had to be reimaged."
"We are not aware of a single compromise from the web since implementing the solution."
"It has reduced security events to follow up on. While it is not 100%, there has been probably a 90% or more reduction. We were getting hit left, right, and center constantly from people browsing the Internet and hitting bad websites. It was not just bad websites that were stood up to be malicious, but good sites that were compromised."
 

Cons

"Iboss is growing so fast that it is often hard for them to keep up with the challenges."
"File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature."
"Their on-premise hardware's network interface is capped at one gigabit, which is sort of a problem. If you stand a filter up where all traffic flows through that, according to them, in order to go above a gigabit, you have to have multiple devices, which in today's IT seems a little bit silly. They could easily put in an SFP port into their device that could accommodate 10 gigs or at least offer a box."
"The problem our organization had is that iboss failed for the Mac devices; it is not able to give a successful agent for the Mac agents, and that is where in 2025 we had to migrate to the Palo Alto-based platform."
"The endpoint-type solution is an area that needs some improvement."
"I have heard they are doing DDoS filtering, but I am not certain if they are implementing it correctly."
"It is stable, but due to growth, it can sometimes be less stable than wanted."
"If they could implement an extra security layer preventing access to iboss from the open internet, it would be great."
"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."
"Areas for improvement for the platform include addressing scalability and architecture concerns, especially for large deployments involving more than 500 or 1,000 users."
"Forcepoint ONE can be improved in scalability to handle more hybrid environments."
"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."
"The sales staff promised more than they can deliver, but the technical staff is excellent."
"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."
"We encounter challenges in determining whether certain features for blocking certain file types or preventing automatic downloads are functioning correctly."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists."
"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. However, that is a big ask because a lot of that depends on how websites are constructed. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for. It is really not that big an issue for us to make the exceptions. We feel like we are doing that without a huge impact on our security posture, but we do have to make some exceptions for complex sites, e.g., mostly SaaS-type sites and applications."
"Menlo Secure is a smaller company with limited resources and funding, which makes it challenging to compete with larger companies such as Palo and Cisco."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists. I have numerous entries, but are they all still needed? A report that would show me my list of who is allowed and whether we're actually using it would be useful because I can then go clean up my list. It would be easier to manage. We would eliminate the vulnerability of unused services."
"We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"We had the cost of purchasing a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs. However, the following year, the cost of just licensing was similar to what was paid the previous year for a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs."
"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."
"It is expensive compared to one of its competitors."
"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"We have our pricing by user. We do our pricing agreements annually. There are also additional costs for maintenance."
"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."
"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."
"When considering only the cost, the solution may appear to be costly; however, when evaluated in terms of commercial value, Bitglass is not expensive."
"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 product is reasonably priced compared to other vendors. I rate the pricing a two or three."
"We save a ton of money and time. Previously, the numerous hits that we were receiving from our security tools, prior to implementing them, had to all be chased down, dispositioned, and endpoints had to be reimaged. It was just a ton of effort to do all that. That is where the savings from time and money come in."
"It is appropriately priced for what they're doing for us. Considering the protection provided, I feel their pricing is spot-on."
"The solution is expensive. It's more expensive than the solution I previously used. Compared with the other cloud-based solutions, it's very competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
910,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Retailer
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise12
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?
I think iboss could be improved by making reporting and dashboard customization more flexible, and simplifying troubl...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
I use iboss as a cloud-based secure web gateway to provide secure internet access, web filtering, and protect remote ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for iboss?
My experience with iboss's pricing structure, setup cost, and licensing model has been positive, straightforward, and...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint ONE?
The aspects of pricing, setup cost, and licensing are managed by our sales team, as I handle the technical side.
What needs improvement with Forcepoint ONE?
Forcepoint ONE could be improved in terms of scalability to better support hybrid environments, as many organizations...
What advice do you have for others considering Forcepoint ONE?
I advise others looking into using Forcepoint ONE to study its features, as it covers many of the use cases usually a...
What needs improvement with Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway?
There aren't specific areas for improvement; however, they're not as well known as the big vendors such as Palo Alto....
What is your primary use case for Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway?
People are mainly using it for zero trust web access. Menlo Secure is built from the ground up to provide zero basic ...
What advice do you have for others considering Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway?
Secure file sharing and data protection is not exactly what Menlo Secure is designed to do. While it can handle some ...
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Bitglass
Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security
 

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
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Forcepoint ONE vs. Menlo Secure and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
910,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.