We performed a comparison between Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway, and McAfee Web Protection [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about RSA, BitSight, OneTrust and others in IT Vendor Risk Management."Offers open ports from an external point of view."
"The product helps us identify the vulnerabilities of internet-facing applications."
"Its customer service team responds quickly."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"I prefer BitSight due to its patch management capabilities. The score is a valuable feature. I have contacted the customer support through e-mail and their response rate is fast. I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"It's stable and reliable."
"Ability to send decrypted traffic to other security solutions for inspection."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"Transparent Mode: Since we have multiple sites and roaming users, it has helped us in deploying the proxy to users without having to push any configurations to end users."
"Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway has improved our organization through its ease of use."
"The solution’s administration is easy."
"The policies are category-based, so knowledge of another content URL is not compulsory."
"The tool categorizes the user profiles which is very comfortable."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in the configuration for security roles."
"McAfee Web Protection was a good tool because in the olden days when you had to use a proxy tool when browsing the internet. Today the logic has changed slightly, in the sense your protection's taken onto the cloud. You'll exit a predefined gateway on the cloud before your internet browsing happens and therefore you're secured."
"It's a solution that permits making a granular configuration and it is easier to deploy the same configuration on a lot of devices using the central console. It is the master of the product."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it protects against threats that are coming from the web."
"The solution is not too expensive. It's affordable."
"It has dependable anti-malware and intrusion prevention features all-in-one package."
"It doesn't seem to take too much system bandwidth, and I also like its reporting. Once a month, it gives me a reminder of the activity. It reminds me that the protection is on, and if there are any issues, it summarizes those minor issues. During the month, it only notifies when there is something special."
"The product is quite an effective firewall."
"Its factor analysis feature could be better."
"Data enrichment is the major issue."
"There may be room for improvement in the methodology for identifying findings, as occasional errors occur on the technical side."
"The solution’s benchmarking should be improved."
"At the moment, when the vulnerability score decreases, it remains the same for quite a while, even though issues are resolved in 24 hours."
"Ease of use could be improved."
"Overall the software is occupying too much memory space. If they could remedy that, it would be a better experience, because today Windows is occupying too much memory space as well (in terms of the RAM), and this software has also started occupying all the memory. Due to this, I have less space for my other office products and data. I can't, for example, operate a huge Excel sheet or other datasets."
"It has a problem with tablets and the iPhone. It's not filtering on these platforms. It filters on Windows but not iOS or Android."
"The firewall doesn't have any features because some customers are requesting they will install the firewall without licensing. At this time we cannot go further without licensing. Licensing is a must with Forcepoint Web Security firewalls."
"The deployment is a bit complex and it requires expertise to deploy, which is something that should be improved and made easier to do."
"But the deployment could be easier. It might take from one day to three days. Usually, that involves an engineer from the vendor and a working team at the enterprise."
"The technical support team's response time could be improved."
"Managing the endpoint for both DLP and web security should be simplified."
"The solution should be more proactive in regards to sending you updates."
"We used a consultant to help us set it up. Unfortunately, he was not that good. They were out of McAfee people. He was a consultant and knew the product, but he was not a McAfee person. How they managed it and how they worked was not straightforward."
"McAfee Web Protection can improve the information provided for hybrid installations in the console. Additionally, having cloud protection would be good."
"In McAfee Web Protection there are gaps in the security design, in the overall architecture, the gaps need to be fixed."
"Lacking filter for spam."
"I'm not sure if the solution itself is cloud-based or not. If it isn't they really need to begin to develop that out a bit."
"The True Key version for mobile phones should be improved. The password manager is not as seamless as on the desktop. Once implemented, on the desktop, when you go to the site, it automatically fills and connects you, whereas, on the mobile phone, it doesn't do that quite seamlessly. You need to open the True Key application and then select the password you want to use. It then opens in the browser. There are fewer steps in the desktop version as compared to the mobile version."
"There is a real need to make sure all the updates and improvements are in order to keep the security at top performance to continue defeating threats that come daily."
More Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →