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

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) vs Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 2025

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

iboss
Sponsored
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (7th), ZTNA as a Service (8th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (8th)
Check Point Harmony SASE (f...
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
6th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Firewalls (17th), Anti-Malware Tools (6th), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (7th), ZTNA as a Service (4th), ZTNA (2nd), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (5th)
Netskope Next Gen Secure We...
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
20th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of iboss is 2.2%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) is 2.4%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is 2.2%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
iboss2.2%
Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81)2.4%
Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway2.2%
Other93.2%
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

Featured Reviews

Matt Crockford - PeerSpot reviewer
It's easy to roll out, and their understanding of our business made it seamless
One aspect we value about iboss is its simplicity. Their customer service is brilliant, and they are super responsive and knowledgeable. It's easy to roll out, and their understanding of our business made it seamless. We were impressed by the solution's mental health function, which can detect if someone needs help. It scans what users are browsing and flags warning signs so we can check to see if they are okay. We've had to use it a couple of times. The user interface is highly intuitive. Our IT team picked it up with minimal training. It's arranged so that it's easy to find where things are. Another advantage is the single pane of glass console, which gives you visibility into what's happening. We're not fully there yet because we haven't implemented zero trust, but we're excited about the possibilities from the demos we've seen. We launched a POC of iboss' ChatGPT Risk Protection feature two weeks ago. AI is a great tool, but you need to be careful what you put into it. My biggest fear is employees inputting sensitive corporate information or customer PII data into one of these chatbots. I was impressed by our trial of the feature. It's exactly what we wanted. Now, when a user goes to ChatGPT, there's a banner warning them not to share information, and we can block conversations containing customer data like bank details and email addresses. I don't want to stop people from using it, but we need visibility. We've only tried it on a test group of 15 people. You can configure it to look for specific keywords or integrate it with your DLP policy if you have that configured
Nasseer Qureshi - PeerSpot reviewer
Delivers seamless and secure remote access while enhancing security posture
Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) offers strong features, but there are areas that could be improved. One area for improvement is integration with third-party identity providers. It works with standard SAML and SSO, but we would prefer deeper integrations with solutions such as Ping for more advanced identity-based policies. Additionally, a mobile-specific client or lightweight agent would be helpful for securing access from smartphones, especially in BYOD environments. We would appreciate more granular reporting and analytics, including better drill-down capabilities to investigate specific users or app activity. The logs are comprehensive, but filtering them can sometimes feel messy. The user interface on the management portal could be more intuitive, especially when managing multiple sites or remote offices. Some of the policy configuration steps are nested and could be streamlined.
Ernst (Eric) Goldman - PeerSpot reviewer
Designed to enforce architecture governance, ensuring traceable SaaS traffic
Netskope provides vigorous policy enforcement for SaaS platforms based on how we configure it, but its vulnerability management and threat intelligence capabilities could be stronger. We rely on external sources to become aware of vulnerabilities in major SaaS platforms, which highlights a gap. It would be beneficial if Netskope offered more robust vulnerability management or integrated threat intelligence through in-house development or partnerships. This would allow for a better policy setup without needing external threat intelligence to configure Netskope. Adding these features would enhance its overall value. I would suggest making some minor improvements to the interface to make it more intuitive, but those are primarily cosmetic. In terms of actual features, the only significant enhancement I could think of, besides better threat intelligence, would be for Netskope to assess the general SaaS landscape. This could include a scorecard showing the security posture of various SaaS platforms based on their track record with breaches and vulnerabilities. I understand this could create friction with SaaS providers if some receive poor scores, which might impact their relationship with Netskope. If Netskope were to harness machine learning more effectively and share those models transparently with enterprise customers, this could include making traffic data they already collect available for deeper analytics, allowing customers to gain better insights into employee traffic patterns. It could also assist with network operations by helping to fine-tune performance based on traffic flow, even though the primary purpose of analyzing that data is security-related. Providing more advanced analytics using existing data could significantly enhance its value to enterprises.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Because of iboss, I did not have to assign web filtering tasks to my techs on a daily basis."
"From a use-case scenario, what I like the most is the plug-in. I like the fact that we can do the filtering of these devices offsite independent of the network they are connected to, and we do not have to have traffic coming back inside our network."
"I would rate the technical support of iboss a solid 10 without a shadow of a doubt."
"Valuable features: Within the filter: Controls (Web categories, applications, and Allow/Block list) and Network (local Subnets). Within the reporter: Logs (Event Log) and Reports."
"First of all, the security policies are essential. I do not have to rely solely on Active Directory for our users."
"iboss is among the few products providing inline filtering where no application is needed on the device. It operates on the network side and is not device-based. This feature was one of the main reasons why we stayed with them for so long."
"Our primary use case for this product is DLP,"
"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."
"The characteristics that I have liked the most are the ease of implementation and administration."
"The solution offers both client and clientless versions for good remote access."
"The application control and granular access feature are very easy to use, intuitive, and effective."
"Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) has positively impacted my organization by securing our systems."
"The monitoring and granular policies are very helpful."
"It has provided a seamless gateway to much-needed platforms."
"Perimeter 81 has increased my security and privacy while maintaining solid internet performance."
"The product’s ability to block phishing sites is valuable."
"We can connect cloud apps and monitor them."
"Prevents data leakage and protects data."
"We've found the solution to be quite stable."
"Web filtering and DLP are good features."
"The solution has some useful features, such as microservices. They have sandboxing that allows the prevention, encryption, and remote browser isolation."
"The solution offers good security functionality."
"It is for secure web trafficking, and it is doing what it needs to do. It allows customers to consolidate and eliminate multiple technologies onto Netskope and just kind of turn the dial and use more features, such as CASB, VPN. SWG is another feature. You can monitor and govern all the traffic."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is that everything is on the cloud. It has no on-premise hardware to deal with."
 

Cons

"I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention."
"For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company ExxonMobil."
"Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, iboss is not cheap, and that's my only concern."
"Iboss is growing so fast that it is often hard for them to keep up with the challenges."
"Our biggest problem with their service was it did not recognize the device and filtering did not always work correctly."
"Our biggest problem with their service was it did not recognize the device and filtering did not always work correctly."
"The solution could be stronger on the integration side and offer more cloud applications like G Suite or Oracle."
"Our iboss subscription access should be more secure with an OTP or VPN etc. It is easy to gain access if, for example, hackers obtain my username and password."
"Although the interface is user-friendly, further simplification and customization options tailored for non-technical users would benefit smaller firms without dedicated IT teams. Intuitive dashboards and guided setups can help in reducing the learning curve."
"They could improve on the available public documentation."
"Providing USB control in a Linux environment will give more control over data security."
"What would be useful would be a notification/warning that a session is due to timeout after exceeding the default connection limit."
"Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) could be improved as there's complexity during initial configuration, and there's a learning curve."
"The platform still lacks relevant dashboards and the ability to customize them based on our needs."
"Support is one of the points of improvement."
"The cost is a bit expensive for most users."
"Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway needs to integrate IoT, which can help to control devices."
"The solution lacks a good reporting feature."
"The solution could improve the features for Zero Trust Network Access. They should add more security components to that module."
"The solution needs to improve its on-premise detection technique."
"The accuracy could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in streamlining policies. So what happens is that when you apply a specific Netskope policy, you never know the kind of content it will automatically block, or it will allow."
"The initial setup is a bit complex in that it takes a lot of time. In order to get the product to work as you need it to, there is a lot of configuration required."
"The stability of the solution to be very good. It is not the best and could improve but it is better than other solutions, such as Forcepoint."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"It is expensive compared to one of its competitors."
"We had the cost of purchasing a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs. However, the following year, the cost of just licensing was similar to what was paid the previous year for a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs."
"It is not expensive, and it is also not cheap. iboss is priced right in the sweet spot for the number of features it offers."
"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"The product is reasonably priced."
"Regarding pricing, I can say that the more the number of users, the less they have to pay."
"The pricing is good, especially when you compare it to other firewall or UTM solutions from FortiGate or SonicWall, where you would have to invest about four hundred thousand rupees for 100 users over a three-year period."
"The product is neither cheap nor expensive."
"Perimeter 81 charges separately for gateways and VPN connectivity, but compared to Azure, it seemed more reasonable."
"The solution's pricing model may not be suitable for smaller companies, as they might find it expensive. Larger companies tend to receive more value due to many users."
"The pricing of Check Point is relatively high when compared to other competitors like Palo Alto and Fortinet. While Palo Alto may be on the higher side in terms of cost, Check Point's pricing is similar to that of Fortinet. In some cases, Check Point offers better value for the features it provides. We initially considered other options but ultimately decided to purchase hardware that came with three years of iOS. This approach eliminated the need for any additional costs associated with Check Point. I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"The solution is priced appropriately considering its uses. For an essential license, a user pays only 30 USD per month. For an enterprise version, the prices can be negotiated with the company."
"The license model is based on the number of users. You have the possibility to have 10,000 users if you wish."
"The product is cheap."
"The solution's overall cost is cheaper than regular web security solutions."
"We pay a licensing fee of $10,000 on a yearly basis."
"The price is average. Because the license is user-based, you can increase it as per the user quantity."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
866,685 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business52
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise15
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?
For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company Exxon...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
Previously when I used iboss, we did the POC for iboss for ExxonMobil. Four or five people wanted to move from our ol...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for iboss?
Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, iboss is not cheap, and that's my only concern. There are cheaper alte...
What do you like most about Perimeter 81?
Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Perimeter 81?
It's essential to consider the organization's specific requirements and budget. Here are some general recommendations...
What needs improvement with Perimeter 81?
In terms of improvement, Perimeter 81 could enhance its reporting and analytics capabilities to provide more detailed...
Which lesser known firewall product has the best chance at unseating the market leaders?
Netscope, Zscaler if they continue route they are on now. FIrewalls needs great deal of automation on each end, datac...
Which lesser known firewall product has the best chance at unseating the market leaders?
Those firewalls that allow extend the perimeter. Nowadays, there is a issue with the static perimeter and all is goin...
What do you like most about Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway?
There are a lot of features, but the groups that are created for the policy groups available with Netskope are alread...
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Check Point Quantum SASE
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

More than 4,000 global enterprises trust the iboss Cloud Platform to support their modern workforces, including a large number of Fortune 50 companies.
Aqua Security, Cognito, Multipoint, Kustomer, Postman, Meredith
Arrow, Cloudrise, Sainsbury, Evalueserve, Stroock, Apria, Ather Energy, CSA, AVX Corporation Nuna, City of San Diego Case, Genomic Health Case Study, Oak Hill Advisors, MaRS Discovery District.
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) vs. Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
866,685 professionals have used our research since 2012.