We performed a comparison between Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management 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."The solution is user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"Provides good accessibility and handles any overload very well."
"It has dependable anti-malware and intrusion prevention features all-in-one package."
"The solution does what it's meant to do."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in the configuration for security roles."
"The solution’s benchmarking should be improved."
"There may be room for improvement in the methodology for identifying findings, as occasional errors occur on the technical side."
"At the moment, when the vulnerability score decreases, it remains the same for quite a while, even though issues are resolved in 24 hours."
"Its factor analysis feature could be better."
"Data enrichment is the major issue."
"The manufacturerers should have more transparancy about exactly what is getting filtered when you use the product and why."
"Lacking filter for spam."
"We need a better customer experience and more flexibility in the product."
"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."
"In McAfee Web Protection there are gaps in the security design, in the overall architecture, the gaps need to be fixed."
"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."
"Endpoints are lightweight agents, eating too much of the host resources."
"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."
More Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management is ranked 2nd in IT Vendor Risk Management with 5 reviews while McAfee Web Protection [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in IT Vendor Risk Management with 16 reviews. Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management is rated 8.6, while McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management writes "User-friendly solution with robust patch management capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of McAfee Web Protection [EOL] writes "Secure, reasonably priced, and performs well". Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management is most compared with SecurityScorecard, RiskRecon, Microsoft Secure Score, UpGuard Vendor Risk and Tenable Lumin, whereas McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is most compared with .
We monitor all IT Vendor Risk Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.