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

McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service vs Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

iboss
Sponsored
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
13th
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)
McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Se...
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
33rd
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Netskope Next Gen Secure We...
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
15th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

Jack Hamm - PeerSpot reviewer
We experienced benefits immediately but the report generation is lagging
iboss excels on the networking side but lags slightly behind competitors like Zscaler and Netskope in terms of security feature parity. I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention. Using iboss for DLP instead of traditional endpoint solutions is preferable, but its current feature set requires some clunky workarounds. I'd also like to see better integration of DLP into the platform. Additionally, while it's improving, reporting can be slow at times. This is problematic when generating reports for executives who expect them immediately. I'd like to see further improvements in reporting speed and efficiency.
MF
A scalable and user-friendly tool that provides an easy-to-configure user interface
The solution is used for granular filtering. For example, an organization can use the solution to allow users to access Facebook but stop them from playing games The user interface is easy to configure. We don't have to configure a database manually. It’s already present in the product. We just…
Ernst (Eric) Goldman - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"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."
"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."
"iboss is pretty scalable. They provide good support. The case managers you work with to coordinate what you need are pretty good."
"Content filtering is the most useful feature of iboss."
"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 is a solution that prevents advanced persistent threats, and has a zero tolerance for attacks."
"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."
"The user interface is easy to configure."
"The solution's CASB, DLP, and threat protection features are very good."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is that everything is on the cloud. It has no on-premise hardware to deal with."
"It is for secure web trafficking, and it is doing what it needs to do. It allows customers to consolidate and eliminate multiple technologies onto Netskope and just kind of turn the dial and use more features, such as CASB, VPN. SWG is another feature. You can monitor and govern all the traffic."
"We've found the solution to be quite stable."
"The solution offers good security functionality."
"Prevents data leakage and protects data."
"Web filtering and DLP are good features."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its three modules, which are SWG, ZTNA, and CASB."
 

Cons

"I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"The solution could be stronger on the integration side and offer more cloud applications like G Suite or Oracle."
"Sometimes the agent stops working in iboss, and we have to reinstall the agent."
"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."
"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."
"Its pricing could be better."
"File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature."
"The product should provide more integrations."
"The stability of the solution to be very good. It is not the best and could improve but it is better than other solutions, such as Forcepoint."
"Netskope can only provide the high level related to threats."
"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 needs to improve its on-premise detection technique."
"The solution lacks a good reporting feature."
"They should work on marketing material to put out their work with a little more effort."
"Since they have the Netskope client, adding some functionality in the endpoint would be good."
"Improvement in the solution is required in certain areas where the product does not provide access to its direct end users, who use the portal as an administrator."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"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."
"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."
Information not available
"The solution's overall cost is cheaper than regular web security solutions."
"We pay a licensing fee of $10,000 on a yearly basis."
"The license model is based on the number of users. You have the possibility to have 10,000 users if you wish."
"The price is average. Because the license is user-based, you can increase it as per the user quantity."
"The product is cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 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%
Financial Services Firm
29%
Energy/Utilities Company
9%
Government
9%
Retailer
9%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Healthcare Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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 needs improvement with McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service?
The product should provide more integrations. It will benefit the customers as they can use more solutions.
What do you like most about Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway?
There are a lot of features, but the groups that are created for the policy groups available with Netskope are alread...
What needs improvement with Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway?
Netskope provides vigorous policy enforcement for SaaS platforms based on how we configure it, but its vulnerability ...
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
No data available
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.
Information Not Available
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 Cisco, Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks and others in Secure Web Gateways (SWG). Updated: November 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.