No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco ScanSafe Web Security SaaS [EOL] vs Skyhigh Security comparison

Sponsored
 

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

iboss
Sponsored
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (5th), Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (7th), ZTNA as a Service (8th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (8th)
Cisco ScanSafe Web Security...
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Skyhigh Security
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
70
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (8th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (13th), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (9th), ZTNA as a Service (10th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (11th)
 

Featured Reviews

Ashok Ananthula - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Consultant Proxy Engineering at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Cloud gateway has strengthened remote web security and now needs better Mac and ISP support
The problem our organization had is that iboss failed for the Mac devices. It is not able to give a successful agent for the Mac agents. That is where in 2025, we had to migrate to the Palo Alto-based platform. If your use case is for just Windows laptops,you can consider this platform as an option One issue is the data center resiliency part. In India especially, they are not tied up with the Tier 1 ISPs like Tata or Airtel; they were having Tier 2 ISPs and encountered many issues reaching few major sites that my organization depends on, and they were having problems that they could not fix quickly. They also lack a mechanism to route that traffic within their data center; rather, they ask customers to make a pac file change to route it to Singapore explicitly. It would be better if they route from their backend , i mean even if I send it to India DC, they should be able to route it internally to make that work; however, they fail to do that and ask the customer to route it in the pac file. Another suggestion is that in China, they do not have the proper setup; they used to have numerous problems with slowness and lack of premium circuits in China as well. That leads to multiple sites working slowly with latency-related issues. So the main issue is the ISP-related problems that need to be solved.
Enrique-Diaz Jolly - PeerSpot reviewer
Principal Consulting Engineer, Founder, Own at Jolly Security Inc
Super stable with huge capacity but is retired so is no longer supported
The solution is scalable and has a huge capacity. You may experience delays if you are sending requests outside of websites because the proxy has to download and provide content. Speed is dependent on many factors including the combination of networks, tasks, locations, and networking services. Things have become a bit more complicated than with classic website models where the server contained content so there was a straight connection. Now there are distribution networks and other services that are all configured to work differently in various directions. At the end of the day, URLs are still URLs so their categorization remains the same.
Felipe Antoniazzi - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Lead at Johnson and Johnson
Centralized cloud visibility has strengthened governance but still needs smoother policy tuning
Skyhigh Security is, in my view, a strong platform. Of course, there are still areas where the user experience and operational workflows could be improved. One area for improvement is simplifying the initial deployment and policy tuning process. In large enterprise environments, configuring CASB and DLP policies across multiple SaaS platforms can become complex and time-consuming, especially when trying to balance security controls with user productivity. Another improvement in my view is related to the platform improving dashboard usability and investigation workflows. While the amount of data and visibility is valuable, some reporting and navigation areas can feel less intuitive than newer cloud-native security platforms. Another improvement opportunity, in my view, is alert tuning and noise reduction. Many security monitoring solutions require achieving the right balance between visibility and excessive alerting through continuous optimization. More intelligent prioritization and contextual risk scoring could help reduce analyst fatigue.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Iboss is a solution that prevents advanced persistent threats, and has a zero tolerance for attacks."
"The security aspect of the solution, particularly the malware behind it, is excellent."
"iboss has significantly lowered the number of security incidents. It is crazy how much it blocks and how much it is aware of the outside danger."
"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."
"Granular setup, which was able to set different levels of filters using the OUs in the AD."
"The console is cloud-based, which is something I really appreciate."
"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."
"iboss is pretty scalable. They provide good support. The case managers you work with to coordinate what you need are pretty good."
"The solution is super stable because it is made up of a bunch of mega proxies."
"The web security is great."
"It is an easy solution to implement, the web security is great, the filtering of different URLs has been very helpful, it also acts as a firewall which is quite helpful in terms of security, we've used it for content scanning and filtration in the data center, since this is on the cloud the cost has gone down, it's got good features and is easily manageable, and Cisco is rather well-known and robust."
"It is valuable to be able to block whole categories or groups at one time."
"The cyber security features they offer are most trusted."
"Offers a very strong URL spam filtering feature."
"What I found most valuable in Skyhigh Security is its stability."
"Whenever our customers require Skyhigh Security, we offer it to them, and it provides outstanding SSE capabilities."
"As a cloud solution, it's easily scalable."
"The risk rating of each cloud application has been very useful. Whenever we discover a new application is use, we are able to quickly determine if this application is safe to use and whether or not we should allow our end users to be able to access it."
"It's an easy-to-use product."
"Our ROI is 150%."
"Although it is costly, I would recommend this solution to anyone."
 

Cons

"The endpoint-type solution is an area that needs some improvement."
"To scale up, a new iboss Node Blade Chassis must be purchased."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"SSL decryption: We had issues with learners using apps instead of using web browsers. This type of encryption is tough for any appliance in a BYOD environment."
"Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, iboss is not cheap, and that's my only concern."
"One thing I would like to see differently with their Zero Trust platform is that some of the AI aspects related to high-risk activities have more false positives."
"Sometimes the agent stops working in iboss, and we have to reinstall the agent."
"It is stable, but due to growth, it can sometimes be less stable than wanted."
"The licensing could be better. They are an expensive product."
"Setup is not that difficult, but it really requires proper technical training."
"Cisco has good technical support although sometimes our clients would like it to be better in some areas."
"The solution is not supported because it is legacy and almost out of market."
"De-tokenization."
"When compared to other technologies, Skyhigh Security is quite simple, but if there is any improvement in the GUI, it will be quite easy for us because it looks a legacy interface."
"MVISION Cloud is not well known and there should be more information about the solution. There could be integration to local applications."
"Its capabilities are still rather limited compared to other solutions."
"Customer Service: A six out of 10. Technical Support: A six out of 10."
"The tool could improve flexibility with the creation of reports/querying data."
"The services take some time to load. It would be helpful if the loading time was reduced."
"An area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is its UI. It needs to be enhanced and made more user-friendly. Right now, the UI of Skyhigh Security is sometimes confusing. For example, my company is deploying Skyhigh Security for a client and integrating it on the cloud, from an on-premises deployment to a hybrid deployment. Though the experience isn't bad, there needs to be more enhancements. Another room for improvement in Skyhigh Security is the limited training resources, especially when you compare it with Cisco, which has many study materials in the market, even free training resources. You'll get limited resources if you search for Skyhigh Security tutorials on Google and YouTube. Because of high-security requirements and the training material for Skyhigh Security not being available, most engineers and architects avoid the product because there'd be a lack of knowledge in configuring and achieving the goals you'd want to reach via the use of Skyhigh Security. The NOC team deploying the product is having difficulty getting training resources for Skyhigh Security. You'll be charged an enormous amount if you search the market for training because of the limited resources available. Skyhigh Security needs to work on marketing and awareness as an improvement to the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"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."
"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."
"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
Information not available
"Skyhigh provided a FedRAMP solution, tokenization, a better shadow IT capability, and lower cost."
"Commercially, I find Skyhigh Security a little costlier, compared to other products such as SentinelOne or Cybereason which are really novelty products. I'm not comparing Skyhigh Security with Trend Micro, but with other products, in particular the new, next-generation products. The price for Skyhigh Security is high in terms of value and ROI. I would rate the product price combined with product efficacy a six out of ten."
"The price of the solution is good and we pay an annual license."
"Pricing for Skyhigh Security is okay, though there's always a scope for price improvements. Its pricing is okay compared to other products because other products have very expensive licensing costs. Along with the licensing, support is also provided for Skyhigh Security, so pricing is reasonable, but if there's proactive or better support, that will justify the pricing. I haven't interacted with the Skyhigh Security technical support team yet, so I'd give pricing a four out of five rating for now."
"Some of our clients have a perpetual license and pay additional support yearly."
"There is an annual licensing cost to use McAfee Web Gateway. The purchasing of licensing can be difficult for the government sector."
"Have a risk-based approach towards pricing."
"There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually. The price is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
899,204 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
No data available
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise8
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise47
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?
The problem our organization had is that iboss failed for the Mac devices. It is not able to give a successful agent ...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
We used iBoss mainly for Internet Access by having an Agent on Windows laptops Primarily because when we try to use i...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for iboss?
I am not involved in pricing, but as per the information I have, during that time, the Blue Coat proxies we were usin...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with McAfee Web Gateway?
Skyhigh Security is, in my view, a strong platform. Of course, there are still areas where the user experience and op...
What is your primary use case for McAfee Web Gateway?
My main use case for Skyhigh Security is primarily for CASB functionality, SaaS security visibility, cloud data prote...
What advice do you have for others considering McAfee Web Gateway?
My main advice would be to spend enough time planning governance, policy design, and operational workflows before ena...
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
ScanSafe Web Security SaaS
McAfee MVISION Cloud, McAfee MVISION Unified Cloud Edge, McAfee Web Gateway, McAfee MVISION CNAPP, and Skyhigh Networks, McAfee Web Gateway
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not 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.
Arup Group, Gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha, K&L Gates, New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Transplace
Western Union.Aetna.DirecTV.Adventist.Equinix.Perrigo.Goodyear.HP.Cargill.Sony.Bank of the West.Prudential.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Fortinet, Zscaler and others in Secure Web Gateways (SWG). Updated: May 2026.
899,204 professionals have used our research since 2012.