Cisco Web Security Appliance Reviews

We are using this solution as a proxy.

The most valuable feature is that we can use it as a proxy.

They need a better graphical interface, and they need a better ISE mechanism.

In the next release, I would like to see the reporting features enhanced.

I have been using the Cisco Web Security Appliance for three to four years.

This solution is stable.

If you want to go to the next level, you will have to change the hardware. The general requirement is that when you reach the hardware limitations, you have to change it.

Depending on the customer, there are anywhere from 100 to 500 uses.

I have contacted technical support and I was satisfied with their help.

The initial setup wasn't easy but not complex either.

I implemented this solution.

You need a fair comparison with other solutions to judge and compare others fairly. I have only used Cisco and would not be able to provide a fair assessment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution mainly for web security for content and products, or for URL filtering. 

The most valuable features is of the solution is that it is user-friendly and we get good web security from it.

The pricing is too high, so that could be improved. Also, the solution is not very compatible with other products.

It is a very stable solution.

The setup was very easy and straightforward.

It is a very expensive program and therefore many people choose other, cheaper programs.

I will rate this solution a nine out of ten. I hope to see the next release being more affordable and better integration between platforms. 

We use it for security.

It's most valuable feature is its convenience.

I would like to see management automation in the next release.

It's so expensive. It's $10,000 per year.

This is one of the solutions that we provide to our customers.

The price of this solution needs to be reduced.

The FTD 21 model's Firepower Threat Defense does not have the multi-instance feature for the virtualization with the physical equipment. This makes it difficult to propose this solution to the customers. 

The issue that we are facing is, for example, if we have a project with a client, and we suggest the twenty-one series, we don't know until we have implemented it that we do not have the multi-instance feature.

The technical support is good. It is reactive and the documentation is very specific and very useful.

When you compare the price of this solution to the price of FortiGate, it's high. 

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We are system integrators and deploy solutions in our client's environment. The primary use case is to allow or deny access to sites or special networks.

The most valuable feature is security.

The GUI is not user-friendly, so it needs to improve or be simplified.

The initial setup is complex, it could be easier.

I have been working with the Cisco Web Security Appliance for five years.

The solution itself is stable, but it all depends on the infrastructure of the end-user, and how to integrate the product to the end-user.

It really depends on the complexity of the infrastructure and the design.

It's a scalable product.

We were using the Fortinet FortiGate Cloud a year ago. Fortinet is easier to use than Cisco.

We also use Cisco Firepower, ASA, the WSA, and ESA for email.

The initial setup is a bit complex.

It can take two to three days to deploy.

We are evaluating the Fortinet FortiGate Cloud.

In the future, we plan to use it in the cloud when there is a Cisco solution available, depending on the market and the purchasing power of the customers.

I would rate this solution an eight out ten.