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

Forcepoint ONE vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 7, 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 Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (5th), Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), ZTNA as a Service (7th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (8th)
Forcepoint ONE
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (10th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (11th)
Microsoft Defender for Clou...
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (14th), Microsoft Security Suite (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) category, the mindshare of iboss is 2.5%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Forcepoint ONE is 2.1%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is 6.5%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps6.5%
iboss2.5%
Forcepoint ONE2.1%
Other88.9%
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2701851 - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Director
Enhances web security with a single pane of glass and flexible deployment
I don't see any need for improvement; one of the really good things about iboss as a company is that they listen to customer feedback. I have suggested enhancements, and they are responsive, making changes for the better, and they do a lot of testing. To improve iboss, although we haven't used it, we considered the VPN solution that comes with the highest tier licensing, which includes DLP and various other add-ons. We prefer using another product which automatically logs you back onto your network when turning on your PC. With iboss, the connection is manual, which doesn't meet our needs. Additionally, sizing can be tricky because, although the initial recommendations may seem adequate, actual usage may require more gateways than anticipated.
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.
FV
Security and Continuity Manager at Rolinco NV
Deployment has been seamless with insightful data categorization and enhanced control
The features of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps that I have found most valuable include the overall portal view, with bubble graphs which give us insight into what goes where in the categorization, nowadays with Generative AI but all kinds of categorization, collaboration, etc. That central view of the portal is very useful for us. The impact of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps on our organization's ability to assess and manage app related risks has been significant because we have more visibility. Therefore, we can add more control, and we have already done so. This was not possible in the old solution, in the old CASB solution with Netskope. We now can see on the spot, and we do that almost weekly, what the end users are utilizing, which cloud providers or cloud apps they're using. The visibility into OAuth apps provided by Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is very good. The visibility into risk and risk management of our organization's Generative AI apps is very nice, as you can choose the category Generative AI and then see exactly what traffic has been going to and from Generative AI in the cloud. This makes us very insightful on what is used within the company. We have some policies on blocking specific Generative AI, and we use within our company one particular AI part, which is CoPilot of Microsoft. In this way, we can see what the end users are using other than CoPilot, and that makes us more in control. The effectiveness of the integration of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps with Defender XDR and defending against SaaS attacks is very intuitive. It works immediately if we create a new policy or in Purview or in Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, or when we make an app unsanctioned by blocking it, then it is almost immediately, or at least within a couple of hours, effective on all the endpoints where the EDR is running. This gives us much better control over things than before.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The console is cloud-based, which is something I really appreciate."
"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 easy to use despite its complexity. Multiple engineers manage it, but it's significantly more straightforward to administer than traditional VPNs and web proxies."
"Because of iboss, I did not have to assign web filtering tasks to my techs on a daily basis."
"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."
"Content filtering is the most useful feature of iboss."
"The solution has massively improved our security posture, giving us full visibility into what our staff does online."
"I would rate the technical support of iboss a solid 10 without a shadow of a doubt."
"The most valuable feature was the website blocking capability, which allowed me to quickly block any dodgy websites."
"The pricing is very good and cheaper than other solutions like Netskope and Forcepoint."
"Forcepoint ONE's best feature is its ease of use; the UI is basic, so users don't have to spend much time learning, and it looks modern, making it simple to find options."
"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."
"Forcepoint ONE has positively impacted my organization and my customers, as it pretty much meets the expectations because they migrated from an on-prem one to a cloud one."
"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 solution’s AJAX-VM provides constant reverse proxy uptime. It has been very positive for our security operations. When people are trying to access the SaaS solution, it protects us from downloading any of that data and experiencing any type of attacks"
"The control of web access by category is very effective."
"The feature that helps us in detecting the sensitive information being shared has been very useful. In addition, the feature that allows MCAS to apply policies with SharePoint, Teams, and OneDrive is being used predominantly."
"We have become more aware of what services our users are using, how often they are using them, and what data is being sent out of the organization and to which services. So, it is really a lot about visibility and helping us make decisions based on that. It drives some of our policy decisions for adding extra security controls."
"The solution does not affect a user's workflow."
"The most valuable feature is the alerting system."
"The integration within the entire Defender suite is highly valuable because it allows for communication between different components and offers pretty decent correlations."
"It is very easy to use, which is what we look for in these types of solutions."
"The compliance capabilities of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps are quite extensive."
"If your business requirements are relatively simple, it can get the job done."
 

Cons

"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."
"To scale up, a new iboss Node Blade Chassis must be purchased."
"File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature."
"The solution could be stronger on the integration side and offer more cloud applications like G Suite or Oracle."
"The reporting feature needs improvement. It doesn't give you the expected results. It is quite difficult to get the specific reports needed, and it is not as intuitive as the rest of the platform."
"Its pricing could be better."
"One thing I would like to see differently with their Zero Trust platform is that some of the AI aspects related to high-risk activities have more false positives."
"I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention."
"I need control over access to web WhatsApp, which the solution cannot resolve yet."
"I rate Forcepoint ONE a seven because it needs improvement in reporting and integrations."
"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."
"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."
"I need control over access to web WhatsApp, which the solution cannot resolve yet."
"Overall, Forcepoint ONE performs well, but I think the dashboard could be made more intuitive, and the policy synchronization between cloud and on-prem components could also be faster and more transparent, alongside having more flexible reporting and alert customization to tailor insights for different clients and compliance needs."
"We encounter challenges in determining whether certain features for blocking certain file types or preventing automatic downloads are functioning correctly."
"Areas for improvement for the platform include addressing scalability and architecture concerns, especially for large deployments involving more than 500 or 1,000 users."
"There have been instances where the alerts generated have been false positives."
"It takes some time to scan and apply the policies when there is some sensitive information. After it applies the policies, it works, but there is a delay. This is something for which we are working with Microsoft."
"The product is very good so far, however, it would be better if it could include more up-to-date threat protection."
"There are challenges with detection and there are challenges with false-positive rates."
"Defender could integrate better with multi-cloud and hybrid environments. It requires some additional configuration to ingest data from non-Azure environments and integrate it with Sentinel."
"The integration with macOS operating systems needs to be better."
"The areas of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps that need improvement are related to IAM, as they do not provide much support for local users."
"Sometimes the support is actually lacking."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"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 product is reasonably priced compared to other vendors. I rate the pricing a two or three."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We have our pricing by user. We do our pricing agreements annually. There are also additional costs for maintenance."
"When considering only the cost, the solution may appear to be costly; however, when evaluated in terms of commercial value, Bitglass is not expensive."
"We utilize the Microsoft E5 licensing, which encompasses the entire Microsoft suite; however, it is costly."
"The pricing is in the middle. It isn't too cheap or expensive compared to other antivirus or security products. It is priced according to industry standards."
"The cost could be improved when you need to pay for anything. For example, refreshing files takes time to load, though it may be my Internet. To improve the refresh time, Microsoft says that we need to pay for a Premium license, and I don't like paying for things that help make a solution better."
"We have an educational licensing agreement. It's a customer agreement for multiple years."
"The pricing is fair."
"Where we are right now, this is an acceptable pricing. I would like to see more transparency given to the end user. The end user given to us is via the cloud service provider. There are different programs and license models. Some include this, and some include that. It is all over the place. There can be a little more consistency or simplification in the pricing so that your parts list is not ten pages long, and you are not trying to determine, "If I have an E3, does this cover that?", or "Do I need to pay separately for the license?" Simplification would probably be better."
"We are an MST and we do not pay for the solution. However, the price of the solution could be better."
"The price could be better and should be reconsidered."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) solutions are best for your needs.
881,455 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
6%
University
5%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise19
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?
For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company Exxon...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
Previously when I used iboss, we did the POC for iboss for ExxonMobil. Four or five people wanted to move from our ol...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for iboss?
Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, iboss is not cheap, and that's my only concern. There are cheaper alte...
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 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...
Which is the better security solution - Cisco Umbrella or Microsoft Cloud App Security?
Cisco Umbrella is an integral component of the Cisco SASE architecture. It integrates security in a single, cloud-nat...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Cloud App Security?
At the time of implementation, when the size of our organization was small, it was a more affordable product. Since a...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Cloud App Security?
The fidelity of the signal in Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps has been a challenge in some areas. There have been i...
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Bitglass
MS Cloud App Security, Microsoft Cloud App 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
Customers for Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps include Accenture, St. Luke’s University Health Network, Ansell, and Nakilat.
Find out what your peers are saying about Forcepoint ONE vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,455 professionals have used our research since 2012.