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

Menlo Secure vs Talon comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

Sentiment score
8.8
Iboss customer service is praised for responsiveness, knowledge, efficiency, excellent support, proactive problem-solving, and dedicated account management.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
4.8
IBoss users seek improved reporting, security features, cloud integration, higher network capacity, intuitive configurations, and more efficient customer support.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
iBoss provides scalable solutions for seamless bandwidth adjustment, supporting global expansion and efficient management of significant user loads.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
We have flexibility with our primary and backup nodes if there's a large amount of web traffic.
 

Setup Cost

Sentiment score
6.4
Iboss offers competitive, transparent pricing with a per-user model, simplifying cost forecasting and enhancing budget predictability for enterprises.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
It offers the same features you would get from a vendor that charges 250,000 British pounds for a fraction of the price.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
iboss is highly stable with minimal issues; cloud transition improves performance, earning high stability ratings from users.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
7.7
Iboss provides scalable cloud security with advanced features like content filtering, SSL inspection, and seamless integration, enhancing user protection.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
The solution's mental health function can detect if someone needs help.
 

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 (13th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (10th)
Menlo Secure
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
31st
Average Rating
9.2
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Firewalls (54th), ZTNA (24th), Cloud Security Remediation (7th)
Talon
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
32nd
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Browsers (3rd)
 

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.
Olivier DALOY - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
University
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security
No data available
 

Learn More

 

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
Lemonade, Rapyd, Telit Cinterion, Landry’s, Golden Nugget, Houston Rockets
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks and others in Secure Web Gateways (SWG). Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.