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

Cisco Web Security Appliance 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

Cisco Web Security Appliance
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (14th)
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

Vusa Ndlovu - PeerSpot reviewer
Advanced protection features offer robust security while integration process presents challenges
With the WebAssign integration, it is not easy when I am integrating policies within the company, especially with NAND and wireless policies. The challenge arises when traffic is blocked from either wireless or wired connections. Although implementing it as a standalone is quicker, integrating BYOD with Cisco I and FTB can be tiring. Once it is done correctly, the functionality and reports become valuable, although the implementation part can still be challenging.
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

"Cisco Web Security Appliance is user-friendly and easy to manage. It protects your environment while accessing the internet."
"The features I like most are the DLP functionality for web security and malware protection."
"Cisco Web Security Appliance can integrate with Active Directory, enabling us to manage all the end-users within AD. It's helpful for setting rules based on individual users and groups. For example, you can configure policies for inbound and outbound traffic."
"It also has high availability."
"Cisco regularly upgrades features for the customer's security requirements."
"Since working with the tool, we have not found any threats in our organization."
"The deployment process is very simple."
"Great for assisting with connections to networks or apps."
"The solution is not too expensive. It's affordable."
"It has dependable anti-malware and intrusion prevention features all-in-one package."
"Provides good accessibility and handles any overload very well."
"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 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 of this solution is that it protects against threats that are coming from the web."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in the configuration for security roles."
"The stability has a good standard right now."
 

Cons

"The tool needs to improve cloud-based decryption."
"The licensing model needs to be more flexible."
"Sometimes reporting is a little bit short."
"If a user wants to use it for other devices like mobile or smartphones, this product isn't so reliable."
"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."
"The solution is not very compatible with other products."
"Setting up Cisco Web Security Appliance is highly complex and it takes about a week. We have to connect it to the Active Directory and configure all the policies for end users. It takes a long time to configure rules for our company data like port forwarding and separating the public and local components."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We need a better customer experience and more flexibility in the product."
"The manufacturerers should have more transparancy about exactly what is getting filtered when you use the product and why."
"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

"I rate the product price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"Licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"At the time, licensing fees were paid on an annual basis."
"There is a subscription-based license needed to use this solution."
"I know from the manager that the price is too high and that other solutions offer the same features for less."
"This is an expensive solution."
"Regarding Cisco price-wise, it is always on a bit on the higher side."
"The solution's cost depends on how many users you purchase. It was maybe $3 or $5 per user, which is a bit expensive."
"$150 Canadian per year."
"The license number would be approximately $35,000."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is cheaper than some of the other options that are available."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
863,641 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
17%
Non Profit
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Web Security Appliance?
The most valuable features of the solution are the functions of proxy for the users who use the internet and the security it offers against the not-so-secure web pages.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Web Security Appliance?
Comparing with other products, Cisco has more functionality, but pricing is a challenge. Cisco is not a product for small companies due to its pricing. Cisco has been in business for a long time, r...
What needs improvement with Cisco Web Security Appliance?
With the WebAssign integration, it is not easy when I am integrating policies within the company, especially with NAND and wireless policies. The challenge arises when traffic is blocked from eithe...
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...
 

Also Known As

Cisco WSA, Cisco Web Security
McAfee Web Gateway, McAfee SaaS Web Protection
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Caixa Seguradora
Sicredi
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Web Security Appliance vs. McAfee Web Protection [EOL] and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
863,641 professionals have used our research since 2012.