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

Forcepoint ONE vs Menlo Secure comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 4, 2024

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

Forcepoint ONE
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
21st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (12th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (15th)
Menlo Secure
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
31st
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Firewalls (52nd), ZTNA (27th), Cloud Security Remediation (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of Forcepoint ONE is 1.7%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Menlo Secure is 1.5%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

Featured Reviews

Edwin Eze-Osiago - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to deploy, stable, and scalable
Bitglass integration with some IDP providers needs improvement. Currently, the solution is not compatible with Azure AD for third-party authentication. The fraud proxy in the SmartEdge agent is not compatible with Forcepoint DLP or a web hybrid agent. I would like the developers to consolidate multiple agents across systems for better integration.
Olivier DALOY - PeerSpot reviewer
Secures users wherever they are and enable us to inspect SSL traffic, but we encountered too many issues
The solution should have no impact but it does have a bit of impact on end-users. For example, we encountered some issues in the downloads that took longer than they did without using Menlo. That is clearly not transparent for users. We expected not to have any latency when downloading anything from the internet with Menlo compared to without Menlo. We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution. In other words, we hope to get the same level of protection, while reducing the number of visible bugs, issues, latencies, impacts on performance, et cetera, that we have today with Menlo. We already solved most of them, but we still have too many such instances of issues with Menlo, even though it is protecting us for sure. The weak point of the solution is that it has consumed far too much of my team's time, taking them away from operations and projects and design. It took far too much time to implement it and get rid of all of the live issues that we encountered when our users started using the solution. The good point is that I'm sure it is protecting us and it's probably protecting us more than any other solution, which is something I appreciate a lot as a CISO. But on the other hand, the number of issues reported by the users, and the amount of time that has been necessary for either my team or the infrastructure team to spend diagnosing, troubleshooting, and fixing the issues that we had with the solution was too much. And that doesn't include the need to still use our previous solution, Blue Coat, that we have kept active so that whatever is not compatible or doesn't work with Menlo, can be handled by that other solution. It is far too demanding in terms of effort and workload and even cost, at the end of the day. That is why we decided to transition to another solution. If we had known in the beginning that we would not be able to get rid of Blue Coat, we probably would not have chosen Menlo because we were planning to replace Blue Coat with something that was at least able to do the same and more. We discovered that it was able to do more but it was not able to replace it, which is an issue. It is not only a matter of cost but is also a matter of not being able to reduce the number of partners that you have to deal with. In addition, they could enhance the ability to troubleshoot. Whenever a connection going through Menlo fails for any reason, being able to troubleshoot what the configuration of Menlo should be to allow it through would help, as would knowing what level of additional risk we would be taking with that configuration.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The core CASB solution is the most valuable part. It allows us to put policies in place around which devices can log into our cloud applications. We have a policy that states that only company devices can access these cloud applications."
"The control of web access by category is very effective."
"The platform's feature that has been most beneficial for our web security is its capability to replicate rules."
"By default without a policy, Bitglass has the capability to notify the admin of multiple or simultaneous logins across a wide range of geographical regions."
"The initial setup was straightforward, which was a huge win. That mostly goes to the fact that they are agentless. We didn't have to sit there deploying thousands of agents and all the things that go along with that type of deployment. We were up and running very quickly."
"The most valuable feature was the website blocking capability, which allowed me to quickly block any dodgy websites."
"The pricing is very good and cheaper than other solutions like Netskope and Forcepoint."
"Forcepoint ONE is okay for me, and I find it a very good solution. Its most valuable feature is monitoring. Its monitoring is very good, and it can communicate with a SIEM system. I also find the DLP feature of Forcepoint ONE good."
"Accessing the internet with a proxy from anywhere is the most valuable feature. It ensures that users are only able to browse legitimate websites. If they happen to go to a legitimate website with a malicious payload, the isolation feature will take care of that."
"The fact that it is a cloud proxy solution is another feature we like. For example, if you acquire a new company, you can use it to protect that new company without the need to install anything physically on their networks."
"It has reduced security events to follow up on. While it is not 100%, there has been probably a 90% or more reduction. We were getting hit left, right, and center constantly from people browsing the Internet and hitting bad websites. It was not just bad websites that were stood up to be malicious, but good sites that were compromised."
"For us, the primary goal is protection on the web, and that's extremely important. We're not using any of the other services at this time. The web part is key to the success of the organization. It gives us the ability to protect. It can isolate. It opens the session in an isolated format so that the code isn't running locally. It is running over in the Menlo environment, not in ours. It is not running on the local computer, whereas if you were to go to a normal website, it would run Java or something else on the local machine and potentially execute the malicious code locally. So, it does give us that level of protection."
 

Cons

"Their new SASE (secure access service edge) product would have been the one thing I would have requested. Now that they have that platform, I'd like to see it as integrated and seamless as possible with the core product. That's what they're working towards and that's where we're seeing the advancements."
"Integration into different multi-factor authentication tools. On their page, they tout Duo, but I don't use Duo. I use another vendor. Not that they don't interact, but it takes a little bit more doing. Any amount of efficiencies here would help."
"There is room for improvement in making the reporting closer to real-time, ideally around five or ten minutes instead of half an hour. The interface could also be updated as it was quite dated."
"Bitglass integration with some IDP providers needs improvement."
"One area for improvement in Forcepoint ONE is that you'll need more training to install the solution yourself. I practiced in a laboratory and I needed more technical information to do the installation."
"I need control over access to web WhatsApp, which the solution cannot resolve yet."
"Areas for improvement for the platform include addressing scalability and architecture concerns, especially for large deployments involving more than 500 or 1,000 users."
"In our environment, when an Active Directory password changes, we tend to have some latency issues with access. It takes about 15 minutes before that password is accessible through Bitglass after the change. That would be the major thing I see as a negative."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists. I have numerous entries, but are they all still needed? A report that would show me my list of who is allowed and whether we're actually using it would be useful because I can then go clean up my list. It would be easier to manage. We would eliminate the vulnerability of unused services."
"We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. However, that is a big ask because a lot of that depends on how websites are constructed. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for. It is really not that big an issue for us to make the exceptions. We feel like we are doing that without a huge impact on our security posture, but we do have to make some exceptions for complex sites, e.g., mostly SaaS-type sites and applications."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is reasonably priced compared to other vendors. I rate the pricing a two or three."
"Typically, the longer you price forward, the better off you're going to be. They have been very willing to work with us on pricing."
"We have our pricing by user. We do our pricing agreements annually. There are also additional costs for maintenance."
"There is training involved. If you're going to add more people to it, such as cross train more of your group, there's a cost. Other than that, that's it. We have paid exactly what the invoices have said. We signed a three-year contract and not gone above it."
"The licensing cost for Forcepoint ONE would depend on the features, but the pricing is very competitive here in Brazil. The solution offers a good price, and I would rate it a three or a four in terms of pricing. I don't have information on whether there are additional costs apart from the standard licensing fees for Forcepoint ONE."
"When considering only the cost, the solution may appear to be costly; however, when evaluated in terms of commercial value, Bitglass is not expensive."
"We save a ton of money and time. Previously, the numerous hits that we were receiving from our security tools, prior to implementing them, had to all be chased down, dispositioned, and endpoints had to be reimaged. It was just a ton of effort to do all that. That is where the savings from time and money come in."
"It is appropriately priced for what they're doing for us. Considering the protection provided, I feel their pricing is spot-on."
"The solution is expensive. It's more expensive than the solution I previously used. Compared with the other cloud-based solutions, it's very competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
864,155 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Forcepoint ONE?
The platform's feature that has been most beneficial for our web security is its capability to replicate rules.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint ONE?
The licensing and pricing were fine with no issues. I took over from somebody else, and it stayed as it was until we rebuilt and moved to the cloud.
What needs improvement with Forcepoint ONE?
There is room for improvement in making the reporting closer to real-time, ideally around five or ten minutes instead of half an hour. The interface could also be updated as it was quite dated.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Bitglass
Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

UNC-Charlotte
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Forcepoint ONE vs. Menlo Secure and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,155 professionals have used our research since 2012.