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

Cisco Web Security Appliance vs Symantec Proxy comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 27, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
6.7
Cisco Web Security Appliance provides valuable security with positive ROI, especially during heightened threats, justifying the investment.
Sentiment score
6.2
Users find Symantec Proxy beneficial for security but costly for small businesses, with mixed opinions on ROI.
For supercritical businesses, there should be a return on investment due to the enhanced security features and resilience.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.4
Cisco Web Security support feedback is mixed, with varied satisfaction based on responsiveness and technician expertise across different tiers.
Sentiment score
4.9
Symantec Proxy support varies post-Broadcom, with mixed reviews on response time, expertise, and improvement efforts acknowledged by users.
Generally, the response time for resolving issues is getting slower.
Support services are lagging and not very responsive.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.5
Cisco Web Security Appliance scales well, integrates with devices, supports virtual environments, and suits large organizations despite clustering issues.
Sentiment score
7.4
Symantec Proxy is generally scalable, with cloud setups preferred for ease, handling varying users well but needing model updates.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Cisco Web Security Appliance is stable and reliable, though potential issues arise from infrastructure complexity and power management.
Sentiment score
7.4
Symantec Proxy is stable and reliable, but some users report glitches, hardware issues, and occasional high latency.
It is very stable, a product that I put on the network, and it will run for a very long time.
Stability depends on the platform on which it is deployed and the number of users.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Web Security Appliance requires better UI, automation, pricing flexibility, tech support, integration, mobile compatibility, and enhanced features.
Symantec Proxy struggles with SSL inspection, user interface, performance, and needs improvements in security features and AI capabilities.
Once it is done correctly, the functionality and reports become valuable, although the implementation part can still be challenging.
The product needs improvement in support services, as they are lagging and not very responsive when we raise concerns or queries, especially in terms of significant impact.
AI features could potentially improve the proxy by helping build rules more efficiently, suggesting unused rules, and enhancing preference setting.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco Web Security Appliance is costly, suitable for larger enterprises, and aligns with market trends for robust security features.
Symantec Proxy is seen as costly, with complex renewals and significant financial commitment, prompting users to explore alternatives.
Cisco is not a product for small companies due to its pricing.
Pricing is difficult to specify as Broadcom sells platforms that include multiple products, making it hard to determine the exact cost for the proxy component.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco Web Security Appliance offers strong web protection, user-friendly operation, scalability, and seamless integration for enterprise security needs.
Symantec Proxy offers caching, URL filtering, policy creation, and advanced security features, highly regarded for ease, stability, and integration.
When I integrate these three products, it efficiently prevents malware, showing which endpoint is affected and providing a comprehensive view of the endpoint connections.
The integration with FireGlass has been essential since both solutions are from Broadcom, enhancing compatibility.
The most valuable features are content inspection, caching, SSL encryption, decryption, WAN optimization, and more.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Web Security Appliance
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
14th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Symantec Proxy
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
13th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of Cisco Web Security Appliance is 2.4%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Symantec Proxy is 2.2%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

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.
Ganesh Basappa - PeerSpot reviewer
Granular control for web traffic with enhanced content inspection, but support needs improvement
There are many use cases in terms of content inspection, such as having granular control for file type extensions when trying to download file types by default. It depends on the requirements, and based on that, we customize policies. We have deployed it in an Azure infrastructure, and we have…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
863,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Non Profit
8%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

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...
What do you like most about Symantec Proxy?
We can address and rectify issues promptly, resulting in consistently positive outcomes.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Symantec Proxy?
Pricing is difficult to specify as Broadcom sells platforms that include multiple products, making it hard to determine the exact cost for the proxy component. Forcepoint sold only proxies, which w...
What needs improvement with Symantec Proxy?
AI features could potentially improve the proxy by helping build rules more efficiently, suggesting unused rules, and enhancing preference setting. These would make the tool more effective.
 

Also Known As

Cisco WSA, Cisco Web Security
Blue Coat Encrypted Traffic Management, ProxySG Appliance
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Caixa Seguradora
Jefferies
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Web Security Appliance vs. Symantec Proxy and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
863,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.