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

Bitsight vs McAfee Web Protection [EOL] comparison

 

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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Bitsight
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
IT Vendor Risk Management (3rd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (9th)
McAfee Web Protection [EOL]
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

Marc Chapel - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable product with efficient features for listing vulnerabilities
I recommend BitSight because it is very convenient to use. It has become a standard tool used in many companies. It is easy to share a few components of an algorithm for users. It is not ideal as it only reflects some of the reality of Internet-facing applications. However, it is the best solution at the moment. I rate it an eight out of ten.
VivekGupta7 - PeerSpot reviewer
Secure, reasonably priced, and performs well
We used cloud services for testing purposes. We used Amazon cloud services. Depending on the solution, there are a variety of options. There are several options such as Endpoint, WAF, NAC, and SIEM are currently available. A variety of solutions are implemented. It was a third-party implementation by Inspira. McAfee also provides an endpoint solution. McAfee's DLP is also present. Previously, we had used Trend Micro and Symantec. There is a method we had to upgrade our systems, a solution was required, and it had to match the three, four solutions from one company that were going to be cheaper, and there is a bidding process, whoever comes first, based on quality and cost, wins the competition. The requirements were speed, quality, and cost. Because Symantec was about to be renewed, our renewal would be more expensive.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best thing about BitSight is the comprehensive list of risk vectors, covering compromised systems, diligence failures, and behavioral anomalies."
"Its customer service team responds quickly."
"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."
"Offers open ports from an external point of view."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"The product helps us identify the vulnerabilities of internet-facing applications."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it protects against threats that are coming from the web."
"It has dependable anti-malware and intrusion prevention features all-in-one package."
"The solution does what it's meant to do."
"The most valuable features of McAfee Web Protection are the reporter, and you have the option to have an agent installed in the notebooks or on the mobiles. You are able to have the same policies inside and outside of your organization which is a benefit."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in the configuration for security roles."
"The product is quite an effective firewall."
"The stability has a good standard right now."
"It is functional. It has reduced risk and downtime while also ensuring regulatory compliance, which is critical."
 

Cons

"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."
"Data enrichment is the major issue."
"BitSight could improve the classes and lower-level detections of anomalies that compound the information used to compute the rating."
"Its factor analysis feature could be better."
"Endpoints are lightweight agents, eating too much of the host resources."
"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."
"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 configuration could be simplified because it is more complex to make the configuration on McAfee. What can be improved is the support of the agent on smartphones, IOS or Android. That still now is not available yet."
"Lacking filter for spam."
"The initial setup could be simplified, there is a learning curve during the implementation."
"The solution should be more proactive in regards to sending you updates."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product has a reasonable price."
"The solution's price is average."
"In McAfee Web Protection you have the ability to install any appliance you want with the same license. If you need an appliance on-premise, you can install it with the same license because the license is for users, not for appliances. If you need one more, you can install it and you don't have problems with the license or need to change your environment."
"It is not very expensive. It costs 100 Canadian Dollars per year per license. I buy one-year or two-year protection. The license covers my PC, laptops, and telephone. The cost is per user but for multiple devices. It has just the standard licensing fees. There are some options for extended protection. For example, if I wanted to have a VPN, there will be an extra cost. So, there are upgradable features, but I'm very happy with what it is giving me with the basic plan. It gives me the basic privacy protection that I need."
"The license number would be approximately $35,000."
"$150 Canadian per year."
"The pricing is cheaper than some of the other options that are available."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Vendor Risk Management solutions are best for your needs.
866,956 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BitSight?
The product is a little expensive and very oriented to large companies.
What needs improvement with BitSight?
BitSight could improve the classes and lower-level detections of anomalies that compound the information used to compute the rating. They could evolve to be a more powerful scanner of cyber hygiene...
Do you recommend McAfee Web Protection?
I highly recommend McAfee Web Protection. In my opinion, it is a comprehensive web protection platform with a great firewall. I find that it is a lot less bulky than competing solutions on the mark...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
McAfee Web Gateway, McAfee SaaS Web Protection
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Fannie Mae, Cabela's, BNP Paribas, PWC, AIR Worldwide, Con Edison, The Container Store, OshKosh, Steris, University of South Florida, Emblem Health, Lloyds Bank
Sicredi
Find out what your peers are saying about OneTrust, SecurityScorecard, BitSight and others in IT Vendor Risk Management. Updated: August 2025.
866,956 professionals have used our research since 2012.