Menlo Secure vs Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway comparison

Menlo Security and Netskope are both solutions in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category. Menlo Security is ranked #31, while Netskope is ranked #15 with an average rating of 9.0. Additionally, 100% of Menlo Security users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Netskope users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 4, 2024

Menlo Secure and Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway compete in the secure web gateway market. Data comparison indicates Netskope offers superior overall features, making it worth the investment, while Menlo Secure is notable for its competitive pricing and effective support.

Features: Menlo Secure provides isolation-based security, active threat protection, and anti-phishing capabilities, ensuring secure browsing. Netskope offers a broad cloud security platform with visibility and control over data traffic, real-time threat intelligence, and advanced security features that cater to organizations prioritizing extensive security.

Room for Improvement: Menlo Secure could enhance its logging mechanisms and user authentication processes when bypassing isolation. More detailed statistics and configuration capabilities for administrators would improve its offering. Netskope could work on reducing its initial setup costs, streamlining integration with diverse infrastructures, and enhancing end-user awareness of its security presence.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Menlo Secure offers straightforward on-premises and cloud deployment supported by responsive customer service. Netskope provides flexible cloud-native deployment, integrating effortlessly with existing infrastructures, and is also supported by reliable customer service. Netskope's deployment flexibility and ease of integration highlight its appeal for seamless implementation.

Pricing and ROI: Menlo Secure presents a cost-effective solution with promising ROI, suitable for budget-conscious organizations. Netskope may involve a higher initial setup cost but promises long-term value through extensive security capabilities, justifying the expenditure for enterprises seeking robust protection.

To learn more, read our detailed Menlo Secure vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway Report (Updated: December 2024).

Buyer's Guide

Menlo Secure vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

December 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 823,795 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

iboss

Featured Reviews

Jack Hamm

Vice President of Security and Engineering at a retailer with 10,001+ employees

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.

Read full review

Olivier DALOY

Group Information Systems Security Director - CISO at Faurecia

Secures users wherever they are and enable us to inspect SSL traffic, but we encountered too many issues

The solution should have no impact but it does have a bit of impact on end-users. For example, we encountered some issues in the downloads that took longer than they did without using Menlo. That is clearly not transparent for users. We expected not to have any latency when downloading anything from the internet with Menlo compared to without Menlo. 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. In other words, we hope to get the same level of protection, while reducing the number of visible bugs, issues, latencies, impacts on performance, et cetera, that we have today with Menlo. We already solved most of them, but we still have too many such instances of issues with Menlo, even though it is protecting us for sure. The weak point of the solution is that it has consumed far too much of my team's time, taking them away from operations and projects and design. It took far too much time to implement it and get rid of all of the live issues that we encountered when our users started using the solution. The good point is that I'm sure it is protecting us and it's probably protecting us more than any other solution, which is something I appreciate a lot as a CISO. But on the other hand, the number of issues reported by the users, and the amount of time that has been necessary for either my team or the infrastructure team to spend diagnosing, troubleshooting, and fixing the issues that we had with the solution was too much. And that doesn't include the need to still use our previous solution, Blue Coat, that we have kept active so that whatever is not compatible or doesn't work with Menlo, can be handled by that other solution. It is far too demanding in terms of effort and workload and even cost, at the end of the day. That is why we decided to transition to another solution. If we had known in the beginning that we would not be able to get rid of Blue Coat, we probably would not have chosen Menlo because we were planning to replace Blue Coat with something that was at least able to do the same and more. We discovered that it was able to do more but it was not able to replace it, which is an issue. It is not only a matter of cost but is also a matter of not being able to reduce the number of partners that you have to deal with. In addition, they could enhance the ability to troubleshoot. Whenever a connection going through Menlo fails for any reason, being able to troubleshoot what the configuration of Menlo should be to allow it through would help, as would knowing what level of additional risk we would be taking with that configuration.

Read full review

Ernst (Eric) Goldman

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."

"Its initial setup was straightforward."

"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."

"Our primary use case for this product is DLP,"

"iboss is pretty scalable. They provide good support. The case managers you work with to coordinate what you need are pretty good."

"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."

"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."

"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."

More iboss pros

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"The solution has some useful features, such as microservices. They have sandboxing that allows the prevention, encryption, and remote browser isolation."

"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."

"Prevents data leakage and protects data."

"We've found the solution to be quite stable."

"The solution offers good security functionality."

"There are a lot of features, but the groups that are created for the policy groups available with Netskope are already relevant to any industry. So grouping the policies is the easiest part and a valuable feature."

"As Netskope is a cloud-based application, it is possible to analyze and distinguish personal and enterprise instances."

More Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway pros

Cons

"Iboss is growing so fast that it is often hard for them to keep up with the challenges."

"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."

"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 dashboards for local use could be better."

"Its pricing could be better."

"Sometimes, obviously, there are bugs."

"File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature."

"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."

More iboss cons

"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."

"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."

"The user monitoring could still be improved."

"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."

"Netskope can only provide the high level related to threats."

"Cost competitiveness is its area of improvement. They will have to figure out how can they strategically price it because there are a few players in the game who have been doing it for a long time. They will have to figure out how to go to market on the pricing."

"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 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."

"The initial setup is a bit complex in that it takes a lot of time. In order to get the product to work as you need it to, there is a lot of configuration required."

"The solution needs to improve its on-premise detection technique."

"Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway needs to integrate IoT, which can help to control devices."

More Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."

"It is expensive compared to one of its competitors."

"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."

"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."

"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."

"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."

"We pay a licensing fee of $10,000 on a yearly basis."

"The solution's overall cost is cheaper than regular web security solutions."

"The price is average. Because the license is user-based, you can increase it as per the user quantity."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

823,795 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

University

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Healthcare Company

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.

See all answers

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, ...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway?

It is fairly priced.

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Zscaler Internet Access vs iboss

Compared 17% of the time

Cisco Umbrella vs iboss

Compared 16% of the time

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs iboss

Compared 10% of the time

Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform vs iboss

Compared 10% of the time

More iboss Competitors

Talon vs Menlo Secure

Compared 21% of the time

Cisco Umbrella vs Menlo Secure

Compared 18% of the time

Zscaler Internet Access vs Menlo Secure

Compared 10% of the time

SentinelOne Singularity Complete vs Menlo Secure

Compared 9% of the time

More Menlo Secure Competitors

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

Compared 18% of the time

Cisco Umbrella vs Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

Compared 14% of the time

Zscaler Internet Access vs Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

Compared 12% of the time

Fortinet FortiGate SWG vs Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

Compared 10% of the time

Check Point Web Gateway vs Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

Compared 4% of the time

More Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

iboss

December 2024

Download iboss product report

Buyer's Guide

Menlo Secure

November 2024

Download Menlo Secure product report

Buyer's Guide

Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

November 2024

Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway report

Download Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway product report

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform

Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security

No data available

Learn More

iboss

Menlo Security

Netskope

Overview

iboss offers a comprehensive security platform designed for diverse use cases such as web filtering, data loss protection, corporate proxy services, and URL filtering.

iboss integrates advanced features to address dynamic security needs, leveraging its strength in SASE, ZTNA, AI initiatives, and cloud integration, while ensuring seamless operations for remote work. It excels in historical forensics, malware protection, and flexible cloud deployments. Users benefit from comprehensive traffic scanning, robust malware detection, and PaaS capabilities that reduce hardware management. An intuitive admin console ensures efficient management with content filtering and low false positives. SSL decryption enhances security, while DLP protects data in AI conversations. Deployment is rapid and scalable, allowing effortless integration with emerging technologies.

What features does iboss offer?

Granular Web Filtering: Provides precise control over web content access.
Traffic Scanning: Monitors data through multiple ports for security breaches.
Malware Detection: Ensures superior protection against malware threats.
PaaS Capabilities: Eliminates need for hardware management.
SSL Decryption: Enhances data protection by decrypting secure connections.
DLP Capabilities: Safeguards data during AI interactions.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Scalability: Adapts quickly to growing demands and emerging tech integration.
Rapid Deployment: Reduces time to implement security measures.
User-Friendly Admin Console: Facilitates efficient operations management.
Low False Positives: Increases accuracy of threat detection systems.

iboss finds significant application in sectors such as education, where web filtering for K-12 is crucial, and in corporate environments requiring robust proxy services and URL filtering for network security. Its adaptability is essential in scenarios demanding flexible, decentralized security frameworks, particularly for remote work setups.

Menlo Security Secure Application Access

Menlo Security Secure Application Access makes zero trust access easy, giving users secure connectivity to private applications, including web and legacy applications. At the core of Secure Application Access is the Menlo Secure Cloud Browser, which fetches, secures and delivers the content for users.

In addition to providing simple-to-deploy, clientless ZTA, Secure Application Access and the Menlo Secure Cloud Browser protect applications from attacks such as session hijacking, cookie manipulation, and other tactics that employ protocol manipulation.

Secure Application Access protects applications from Internet threats and provides granular controls for added protection of the application and associated data. These security controls include Read-only/Read-write, Upload/download, Copy/paste, AV scanning, Sandboxing, and Data Loss Prevention.

Last Mile Data Protection

Menlo Last-Mile Data Protection identifies and prevents sensitive data from leaving your company by meticulously inspecting all file uploads and user input across browsing sessions. Leveraging the Secure Cloud Browser, users are protected from the internet and you can protect your organization from data loss with comprehensive traffic monitoring and controls. This approach addresses the growing concerns surrounding data leakage in the age of AI tools like ChatGPT.

By identifying sensitive data through file types, regular expressions, or predefined libraries, Menlo Last-Mile Data Protection empowers security teams to regulate data input into AI platforms and prevent unauthorized uploads. This capability provides crucial protection for intellectual property, PII, and other confidential information.

The solution leverages the Menlo Cloud Security Platform's visibility and control over traffic to reliably detect and prevent data leaks originating from both browser submission forms and non-browser traffic. With the ability to inspect encrypted web traffic, Menlo Last-Mile Data Protection enforces DLP policies consistently across all users and devices, ensuring comprehensive data protection.

Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is a comprehensive cloud-based security solution that provides advanced threat protection, data loss prevention, and web filtering capabilities. It offers real-time visibility and control over web traffic, enabling organizations to enforce policies and protect against web-based threats. The solution uses machine learning and behavioral analysis to detect and block advanced threats, including malware, phishing, and ransomware. It also provides granular control over web access, allowing organizations to block or allow specific websites and applications based on user, group, or location. With Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway, organizations can ensure compliance with industry regulations and protect sensitive data from unauthorized access or exfiltration. The solution is easy to deploy and manage, with a user-friendly interface and centralized policy management.

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.

Buyer's Guide

Menlo Secure vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

December 2024

Free Report: Menlo Secure vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway

Find out what your peers are saying about Menlo Secure vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

823,795 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Menlo Secure vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway report.

See our list of best Secure Web Gateways (SWG) vendors.

We monitor all Secure Web Gateways (SWG) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.