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

Menlo Secure vs Skyhigh Security 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
6.9
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (7th), ZTNA as a Service (8th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (8th)
Menlo Secure
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
26th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Firewalls (51st), ZTNA (24th), Cloud Security Remediation (9th)
Skyhigh Security
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
10th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (21st), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (11th), ZTNA as a Service (14th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of iboss is 3.3%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Menlo Secure is 2.2%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Skyhigh Security is 3.2%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
iboss3.3%
Skyhigh Security3.2%
Menlo Secure2.2%
Other91.3%
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.
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.
Felipe Antoniazzi - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Lead at Johnson and Johnson
Centralized cloud visibility has strengthened governance but still needs smoother policy tuning
Skyhigh Security is, in my view, a strong platform. Of course, there are still areas where the user experience and operational workflows could be improved. One area for improvement is simplifying the initial deployment and policy tuning process. In large enterprise environments, configuring CASB and DLP policies across multiple SaaS platforms can become complex and time-consuming, especially when trying to balance security controls with user productivity. Another improvement in my view is related to the platform improving dashboard usability and investigation workflows. While the amount of data and visibility is valuable, some reporting and navigation areas can feel less intuitive than newer cloud-native security platforms. Another improvement opportunity, in my view, is alert tuning and noise reduction. Many security monitoring solutions require achieving the right balance between visibility and excessive alerting through continuous optimization. More intelligent prioritization and contextual risk scoring could help reduce analyst fatigue.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Our primary use case for this product is DLP,"
"The console is cloud-based, which is something I really appreciate."
"Iboss is a solution that prevents advanced persistent threats, and has a zero tolerance for attacks."
"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 definitely recommend iboss for web filtering purposes to other organizations or individuals."
"I would say iboss is a very good product; its scalability is very good, and it's seamless for the user."
"The solution is invisible to our end users, so it doesn't have any impact on their work or performance."
"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."
"This security technology addresses risk and enables people to conduct business without that risk, which is where the ROI is realized."
"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 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."
"We are not aware of a single compromise from the web since implementing the solution."
"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."
"We were able to analyse our user activity, which helped us to identify the associated risks."
"Without Skyhigh, we had zero visibility, but now we are aware of so much more."
"They were very, very aggressive in the market to get a new market share or to take over market share while other companies were being broken up."
"It's an easy-to-use product."
"It also prevents you from writing data to your Gmail and does not allow you to move your data outside of the corporate system."
"Skyhigh Security has positively impacted my organization; before using it, we needed to monitor cloud applications including Office 365 and other applications such as Facebook manually, and after we started using Skyhigh Security, through the dashboard, we are able to control user monitoring, access control, and everything else effectively."
"User analytics."
"I personally don't have any issues with the performance or the stability of the solution."
 

Cons

"I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention."
"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."
"For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company ExxonMobil."
"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."
"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."
"Sometimes, obviously, there are bugs."
"iboss can be improved because the integration could be better; you need to import all the sites that you access today, and there are a few problems whenever you import thousands of websites, making the integration process messy for the users."
"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."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists."
"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."
"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."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for."
"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."
"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."
"De-tokenization."
"Its initial setup could be more straightforward."
"The documentation could be improved."
"The Skyhigh for Google Drive interface and policy engine is a bit confusing and limited when compared against other Google Drive CASB capabilities."
"The only thing we have faced is that sometimes, randomly, the portal becomes too slow."
"Its capabilities are still rather limited compared to other solutions."
"The biggest challenge we have with McAfee is their cross-cloud support."
"Support for securing more cloud apps."
 

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."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"It is appropriately priced for what they're doing for us. Considering the protection provided, I feel their pricing is spot-on."
"There is an annual licensing cost to use McAfee Web Gateway. The purchasing of licensing can be difficult for the government sector."
"The price of the solution is good and we pay an annual license."
"This is an expensive product, but you have to compare that with other solutions that are on the market."
"There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually. The price is reasonable."
"The licensing fees are based on what environments you are monitoring."
"Have a risk-based approach towards pricing."
"Pricing is not out of reach."
"The tool is not expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
896,034 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Retailer
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise8
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business31
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise44
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?
The problem our organization had is that iboss failed for the Mac devices. It is not able to give a successful agent ...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
We used iBoss mainly for Internet Access by having an Agent on Windows laptops Primarily because when we try to use i...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for iboss?
I am not involved in pricing, but as per the information I have, during that time, the Blue Coat proxies we were usin...
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 ...
What needs improvement with McAfee Web Gateway?
When compared to other technologies, Skyhigh Security is quite simple, but if there is any improvement in the GUI, it...
What is your primary use case for McAfee Web Gateway?
I am currently working on Cisco Email Security Gateway, ESA, and I am also exploring Trellix Skyhigh proxy. I have be...
What advice do you have for others considering McAfee Web Gateway?
For IAM, we are using other tools, as we are a financial institution, so we do not go with a single vendor platform. ...
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security
McAfee MVISION Cloud, McAfee MVISION Unified Cloud Edge, McAfee Web Gateway, McAfee MVISION CNAPP, and Skyhigh Networks, McAfee Web Gateway
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not 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
Western Union.Aetna.DirecTV.Adventist.Equinix.Perrigo.Goodyear.HP.Cargill.Sony.Bank of the West.Prudential.
Find out what your peers are saying about Menlo Secure vs. Skyhigh Security and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,034 professionals have used our research since 2012.