We performed a comparison between Cisco Web Security Appliance and McAfee Web Protection [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is stable."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"It integrates well with Cisco Email Security Appliance."
"Cisco regularly upgrades features for the customer's security requirements."
"The setup was very easy and straightforward."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"This appliance gives me good visibility in the userbase and their activities."
"This solution offers categorization for YouTube and other specific applications from Facebook to WhatsApp, which can be controlled whether it's on mobile or PC."
"The deployment process is very simple."
"What we liked best about it was the ability to apply policy to either a user ID or an IP-based network."
"The stability has a good standard right now."
"The most valuable is the blocking of blacklisted sites, a URL that is, either by intelligence or by McAfee, detected as a malicious site."
"The solution does what it's meant to do."
"It has dependable anti-malware and intrusion prevention features all-in-one package."
"The solution is not too expensive. It's affordable."
"The product is quite an effective firewall."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in the configuration for security roles."
"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."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"The tool needs to provide logs. They need to improve firewall threat defense."
"We would like to see a security service head, where we can combine all the security into one solution."
"The solution could improve the graphical user interface. It is not up to the regular standard of what we would expect from Cisco. Additionally, they need to improve the categorization when blocking in the settings. The CLI could have a better view than the graphical user interface but I did not investigate further."
"I would like more automation."
"It should have a user-based quota, per-user quota, that can be defined on the appliance."
"The tool needs to improve cloud-based decryption."
"The licensing model needs to be more flexible."
"Cisco lacks a GUI-based troubleshooting feature compared to products by other vendors."
"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."
"Endpoints are lightweight agents, eating too much of the host resources."
"In McAfee Web Protection there are gaps in the security design, in the overall architecture, the gaps need to be fixed."
"The solution could always use more security features. If it was more secure, it would be an even stronger product."
"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."
"Lacking filter for spam."
"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."
Cisco Web Security Appliance is ranked 10th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 29 reviews while McAfee Web Protection [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 16 reviews. Cisco Web Security Appliance is rated 7.8, while McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Web Security Appliance writes "Ensures security for remote workers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of McAfee Web Protection [EOL] writes "Secure, reasonably priced, and performs well". Cisco Web Security Appliance is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiProxy, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway, whereas McAfee Web Protection [EOL] is most compared with . See our Cisco Web Security Appliance vs. McAfee Web Protection [EOL] report.
We monitor all Secure Web Gateways (SWG) 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.