Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Reviews

Anyone working on application development, Ops or DevSecOps, or anyone who wants to redirect traffic from internal to external securely uses the Web Security Gateway. The product also provides a redirection function that is embedded in the Web Security Gateway.

Secure Gateway is similar from one brand to another, however, with Forcepoint, a big advantage is familiarity. Configuration and customized policies are easy to implement.

Currently, they are planning to improve by offering a cloud solution that covers the Web Security Gateway, CASB, as well as email and endpoint DLP. They are gearing towards a cloud-based platform for easier management and implementation.

The technology has been in use for about 15 years.

Stability is rated eight out of ten.

Scalability is close to eight or nine out of ten.

Technical support can be improved. It is currently provided from two locations, India and the US. Depending on the time, the call may be transferred to either country, which can lead to repetition of information as they do not seem to have a unified system.

Positive

Once the use case is identified, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is easy to set up. The initial preparation involves understanding how data traffic will progress from external to internal and then back to external.

Forcepoint is competitively priced compared to McAfee. For a similar setup, Forcepoint might take fewer days to install, which means lower service fees.

The biggest competitor is McAfee. McAfee has a bigger market share in Singapore. However, in terms of functionality, they are the same.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Other

It is used for security purposes, CASB, and application controls.

I like the product's scalability and stability.

I want improvements in the application control. Also, the solution should have a secure channel because of malware.

I want technical support to be improved so that they can be faster and more knowledgeable.

I have been using Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway since 2016. Though I want to move to the cloud, I currently use an on-prem version.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable solution. Around 1,50,000 users are using the solution in my company. We do have plans to increase the number of users in our company.

I have used Forcepoint's technical support, and I feel that it is average.

The initial setup was complex. The time taken for deployment was a year.

The deployment process involved the making of software-based applications. Then, we install it.

For the deployment and maintenance, we need five to seven people, including engineers and managers.

The implementation was done in-house.

I recommend the solution for small-scale businesses using a cloud-based version. For large-scale businesses, it is not fine.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

On-premises

We primarily use the product for web filtering and enhancing our organization's web security posture.

The web filtering feature, despite its challenges, has been somewhat effective.

The product could improve its automation capabilities, improve integration with virtualization, and enhance its web filtering specifics. Additionally, it could benefit from adopting proprietary ASICs to improve performance and throughput.

Future releases should include features found in FortiGate and Palo Alto, such as improved SD-WAN management, better monitoring of rules and interfaces, live traffic monitoring, and more user-friendly troubleshooting methodologies.

I have been using Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway for three to four years.

The platform is fairly stable but has limitations in terms of performance and throughput.

The product is not as scalable as FortiGate and Palo Alto.

The initial setup was not complex; following the guide allowed a smooth configuration process.

Forcepoint's pricing is moderate. However, transitioning to solutions like Palo Alto or FortiGate, despite potentially higher initial costs, could offer better long-term value due to their advanced features and performance.

We evaluated other technologies including Palo Alto and FortiGate.

The product is relatively easy to configure if you follow the guide, but it lacks throughput and performance compared to competitors. In our experience, the technical support has been underutilized.

The solution needs better SD-WAN management, improved monitoring, and more effective troubleshooting tools like Palo Alto and FortiGate.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

I use Forcepoint SWG to monitor and control my employees' internet usage for both security and productivity reasons. 

What I like about Forcepoint SWG is that I can ensure that employees access only appropriate websites, protecting the organization from malicious threats. Moreover, SWG allows me to track internet usage patterns, helping optimize bandwidth and understand how much time each employee spends online.

In terms of improvement, some of my clients find that certain security details could be enhanced in Forcepoint SWG. Additionally, I would suggest focusing on improving the GUI's stability, especially when implementing new filters or patches. Occasionally, there are issues with crashes during these updates, and smoother transitions would greatly enhance the user experience. 

I have been working with Forcepoint SWG for five years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a ten out of ten.

Forcepoint SWG is scalable and can handle organizations with over 100,000 users. Additionally, through multiple deployments and clustering, it can scale even further, making it well-suited for medium to enterprise-level companies.

I would rate Forcepoint's technical support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup for Forcepoint SWG is straightforward and user-friendly. The basic configuration is not very complicated, and you can have the solution deployed in a day. However, when it comes to more advanced configurations or customer-specific enhancements, it can get a bit complex. While the initial steps are smooth, customization might require more effort and expertise.

I would rate the affordability of Forcepoint SWG as a two out of ten. It is relatively expensive. While some other products, such as firewalls and application firewalls, offer similar functionalities, they might be more cost-effective. However, the specific web security features provided by Forcepoint contribute to its high price.

Overall, I would rate Forcepoint SWG as a ten out of ten.

I have found the simplicity of the solution valuable. The dashboard and reports are good as well.

Our experience thus far with Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway has not been good. The availability of clusters is limited, and the product is very unstable. The development team is slow as well.

There have been a lot of changes in the network at Forcepoint, and we've had downtimes of almost three hours. This happened six times from August to December.

When Forcepoint moves user traffic to another cluster during maintenance, the transaction is not smooth for end users. They lose access to the internet.

In the Middle East, the ISPs block the IPs of Forcepoint, and the Forcepoint compliance team has been unable to resolve these issues.

Forcepoint should focus on understanding how Zscaler works.

In the next release, they should provide an inbuilt, full-fledged DLP CASB feature.

Forcepoint should also work on improving their communication regarding maintenance.

I've been working with this solution for the past seven months.

We have experienced several problems with stability, so I would rate the solution at four out of ten for stability.

I would rate Forcepoint's scalability at seven out of ten. 

We have 75,000 end users and around 300 IT specialists who use this solution.

Technical support staff take a long time to understand and resolve issues. You will need to implement a workaround yourself as technical support may take six months to resolve an issue. This can be the case even when the ticket is escalated. Therefore, I would rate technical support at four on a scale from one to ten.

Neutral

The initial setup can be complex depending on the location. For instance, in the Middle East, we have to use our direct endpoint client. In Europe, we use the proxy endpoint client.

The cost for Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is lower than that for Zscaler and Netskope. It could be around $4 per user annually.

I would not recommend Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway because of all the issues and give it an overall rating of five out of ten.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Secure Web Gateway's most valuable features are firewall blocking and anti-malware scanning.

The automation lifecycle, integration, and export functionality could all be improved.

I've been using Secure Web Gateway for over three years.

Secure Web Gateway is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

Forcepoint's technical support is good, but in the future, I'd like them to provide more tutorial documentation.

The initial setup was simple.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

I've done a few deployments with roaming user filtering and with central management consoles on the content creation and on different critical locations.

The DLP database from Forcepoint is also very good.

It's got a very reliable orientation.

It is a scalable solution. We can use it for global-level customers and for separate locations.

This is a highly detailed product with very good key features. When it comes to optimization, it's similar to Blue Coat. It has a very stable architecture.

It's very feature-rich when it comes to visibility and reporting. The reporting module is very handy. We can schedule reports and generate investigations. 

The initial setup is easy.

I'd like to see the solution improve the banded optimization to offer more bandwidth control, similar to what is on offer with Blue Coat. For example, it would be useful if we could arrange the restriction of certain uploads for particular applications.

It would be great if they had classic customization features. I have quite good experience in Check Point solutions, so I experienced how application protocol features help when we want to deploy bandwidth content filtering. I expect to have the same or close to the same level of customization in Forcepoint.

My bread and butter is Forcepoint DLP. I've worked for about seven years with Forcepoint solutions. However, I've worked with the Secure Web Gateway for five years and have deployed it for customers as well.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It has good architecture. It has an architecture where I have the policy brokers, policy severs, and content creation, as well as an integrated reporting module with a reporting database. I have a team building products with me, including OEM software. When it comes to Forcepoint, it's a very reliable solution.

Many of our customers have between 400 and 800 users. 

I've contacted support many times. 

I cannot say they are excellent support. That said, quite often, I get some good support. Still, I cannot recommend them highly. Luckily, I can manage myself just fine. Now that we are in an apex region, I hope that we will get a good level of support for the application.

Neutral

I am also familiar with Blue Coat

The initial setup is not overly difficult. 

The time it takes to deploy the product depends. If I have all the items I need in my hand, it doesn't take that much time. However, compared to other products, it takes a little while time since you need to get it on the client's field servers for reporting, and you need to have some access with admin privileges. 

I'm able to deploy the solution for my clients. 

I don't deal with licensing and have no visibility on the exact pricing. 

I'm a partner. My company is a system integrator, and I am a consultant. We deploy this solution for clients and have handled five or six high-end deployments so far. 

I'd recommend the solution to others if the requirements make sense and it works in the company environment. 

I would rate the solution seven out of ten. It's very reliable. It just needs more features.

On-premises

The most valuable feature for me in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is URL filtering, though all other features of the product are okay as well.

A room for improvement in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is the support it offers. It's very bad.

What I'd like to see in the next release of the product is for it to be less complicated because at the moment Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is more complicated than other products. Sometimes issues come up that you can't solve without the support team. For example, you should write the root password to fix the issue.

In the next release of the product, it would be good if it had an easy-to-use interface. Troubleshooting issues in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway should be less complicated as well.

I've been dealing with Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway for about two years now. My company doesn't use the product. It's the customers who use Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway.

Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is a scalable product.

We had to contact Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway technical support because some of the features didn't work, but it took them a long time to respond. Sometimes, even if you call support many times, they will not respond. In the end, they weren't able to solve our issues. We solved the issues ourselves.

The initial setup for Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway isn't easy. When you compare it to Fortinet, it's very complicated.

For example, for Fortinet FortiProxy, you don't need to install the database or SQL, and there's no need to prepare a server. You also don't need to do a lot of authentication because it's only one appliance, so it will work via proxy, then you can do the installation.

For Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway, you need two servers: one for installing the management software and the second server for SQL, and only then can you control the appliance.

The initial setup for Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is complicated, especially when compared to Fortinet FortiProxy.

In terms of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway pricing, I'm not part of the sales team. I'm on the technical team, so I don't have information on the price.

I work for an IT company that provides solutions to customers such as Fortinet, Palo Alto, Forcepoint, and GoSecure. In terms of Forcepoint, my company focuses on web security, particularly Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway.

My company has enterprise customers who use the product.

The number of users of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway varies. One customer has around six hundred users. Another customer has three hundred users then there's a customer in the banking industry that has a thousand users.

My advice to others looking into implementing Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is to prepare a lab and create scenarios in the lab before going to the customers.

My rating for the solution is seven out of ten.

On-premises