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

Forcepoint ONE vs Netskope Next Gen 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)
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (7th), ZTNA as a Service (7th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (8th)
Forcepoint ONE
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (10th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (11th)
Netskope Next Gen Secure We...
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
17th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of iboss is 2.5%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Forcepoint ONE is 1.6%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is 2.4%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
iboss2.5%
Forcepoint ONE1.6%
Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway2.4%
Other93.5%
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

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.
Ernst (Eric) Goldman - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at Antares Joint Development
Designed to enforce architecture governance, ensuring traceable SaaS traffic
Netskope provides vigorous policy enforcement for SaaS platforms based on how we configure it, but its vulnerability management and threat intelligence capabilities could be stronger. We rely on external sources to become aware of vulnerabilities in major SaaS platforms, which highlights a gap. It would be beneficial if Netskope offered more robust vulnerability management or integrated threat intelligence through in-house development or partnerships. This would allow for a better policy setup without needing external threat intelligence to configure Netskope. Adding these features would enhance its overall value. I would suggest making some minor improvements to the interface to make it more intuitive, but those are primarily cosmetic. In terms of actual features, the only significant enhancement I could think of, besides better threat intelligence, would be for Netskope to assess the general SaaS landscape. This could include a scorecard showing the security posture of various SaaS platforms based on their track record with breaches and vulnerabilities. I understand this could create friction with SaaS providers if some receive poor scores, which might impact their relationship with Netskope. If Netskope were to harness machine learning more effectively and share those models transparently with enterprise customers, this could include making traffic data they already collect available for deeper analytics, allowing customers to gain better insights into employee traffic patterns. It could also assist with network operations by helping to fine-tune performance based on traffic flow, even though the primary purpose of analyzing that data is security-related. Providing more advanced analytics using existing data could significantly enhance its value to enterprises.

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,"
"Because of iboss, I did not have to assign web filtering tasks to my techs on a daily basis."
"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."
"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."
"Its initial setup was straightforward."
"Iboss is a solution that prevents advanced persistent threats, and has a zero tolerance for attacks."
"The iboss solution gives me the ability to scan the traffic through all the ports, through all the 131,000 PCP and UDP ports, and with this ability, we have the granularity also for consults over social media and applications on mobile, and this is an advantage that the customers are looking for right now."
"iboss is among the few products providing inline filtering where no application is needed on the device."
"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 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 pricing is very good and cheaper than other solutions like Netskope and Forcepoint."
"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 most valuable features of Forcepoint include Zero Trust Network Access and remote user protection for private applications."
"Forcepoint ONE is okay for me, and I find it a very good solution. Its most valuable feature is monitoring. Its monitoring is very good, and it can communicate with a SIEM system. I also find the DLP feature of Forcepoint ONE good."
"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 platform's feature that has been most beneficial for our web security is its capability to replicate rules."
"The solution is reliable and has high availability."
"All our customers use multiple data and want to protect that by preventing data leakage and that's what it does."
"The solution's CASB, DLP, and threat protection features are very good."
"Overall, the product is nice, and I like the URL filtering, CASB, and other security stacks like threat prevention."
"The solution has some useful features, such as microservices. They have sandboxing that allows the prevention, encryption, and remote browser isolation."
"Web filtering and DLP are good features."
"So far, the solution has been excellent."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is that everything is on the cloud. It has no on-premise hardware to deal with."
 

Cons

"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."
"I am currently doing a PoC of the zero trust aspect of it. Compared to other similar solutions, it is hard to get around each feature. It takes a while to get used to it."
"Sometimes, obviously, there are bugs."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"Our biggest problem with their service was it did not recognize the device and filtering did not always work correctly."
"The endpoint-type solution is an area that needs some improvement."
"Fold that in with the risk intelligence they're getting from all of the different subscriptions they are a part of. Now, these security companies subscribe to things like emerging threats, databases, etc. You can fold all this intelligence to decide what's happening on an endpoint. I would love to see them start moving into that space. That would compete directly with Microsoft. Maybe that's why they haven't. Having that ability native within the solution would be great. The other area in which I would love to see improvement is more detailed descriptions of why they block websites."
"The area I would like to see improvement in is the ability within the reporter to navigate directly to the content the user is traversing."
"I need control over access to web WhatsApp, which the solution cannot resolve yet."
"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."
"I need control over access to web WhatsApp, which the solution cannot resolve yet."
"I wish they would advance more into the endpoint DLP solution."
"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."
"Initially, we had some challenges that Bitglass resolved quickly. The challenges were around communication."
"The accuracy could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in streamlining policies. So what happens is that when you apply a specific Netskope policy, you never know the kind of content it will automatically block, or it will allow."
"The solution could improve the features for Zero Trust Network Access. They should add more security components to that module."
"Netskope can only provide the high level related to threats."
"I think the accuracy could be improved."
"The initial setup and implementation are not straightforward."
"The solution needs to improve its on-premise detection technique."
"The solution lacks a good reporting feature."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 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."
"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"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 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."
"We have our pricing by user. We do our pricing agreements annually. There are also additional costs for maintenance."
"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 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."
"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 price is average. Because the license is user-based, you can increase it as per the user quantity."
"The license model is based on the number of users. You have the possibility to have 10,000 users if you wish."
"The product is cheap."
"The solution's overall cost is cheaper than regular web security solutions."
"We pay a licensing fee of $10,000 on a yearly basis."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
885,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise3
 

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 lesser known firewall product has the best chance at unseating the market leaders?
Netscope, Zscaler if they continue route they are on now. FIrewalls needs great deal of automation on each end, datac...
Which lesser known firewall product has the best chance at unseating the market leaders?
Those firewalls that allow extend the perimeter. Nowadays, there is a issue with the static perimeter and all is goin...
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Bitglass
No data available
 

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
Arrow, Cloudrise, Sainsbury, Evalueserve, Stroock, Apria, Ather Energy, CSA, AVX Corporation Nuna, City of San Diego Case, Genomic Health Case Study, Oak Hill Advisors, MaRS Discovery District.
Find out what your peers are saying about Forcepoint ONE vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.