We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway 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 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 solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"This is a highly detailed product with very good key features."
"The Forcepoint client software can be downloaded on a user's machine so that it can filter the sites from home or the office. That's one of the biggest features. We can use it for filtering our laptops for our users at any place."
"The GUI is quite nice."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"Reporting and automatic updates of website categorization."
"It's stable and reliable."
"Ease of updating the latest hotfixes and patches on the appliance."
"Giving visibility to people's actions in the network, while keeping attackers out: across data centers, offices, branches, and the cloud."
"The most valuable feature of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is the antivirus."
"The most valuable aspect for me is the user-friendly interface."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the antivirus and child protection features."
"I would recommend it to others as it's easy to use."
"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."
"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."
"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 Sandbox solution should be integrated with the NIST to handle whatever new vulnerabilities or new sites are identified as potential threats."
"Security of browsing."
"The reporting could be improved."
"The deployment is a bit complex and it requires expertise to deploy, which is something that should be improved and made easier to do."
"Improve detailed guidelines to deploy the transparent proxy to Firefox users."
"It has a problem with tablets and the iPhone. It's not filtering on these platforms. It filters on Windows but not iOS or Android."
"But the deployment could be easier. It might take from one day to three days. Usually, that involves an engineer from the vendor and a working team at the enterprise."
"It's the support that's the problem because that's a different question from the product itself — it's the Achilles heel."
"The customer support of the product is an area with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"I believe the absence of a procedure is the main issue."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the pricing."
"The initial setup of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is complex. The full deployment took approximately two weeks."
More Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is ranked 5th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 47 reviews while Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is ranked 18th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 6 reviews. Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.8, while Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway writes "Simple to set up, reliable, and offers great reporting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway writes "Is easy to use and is scalable". Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Symantec Proxy, Fortinet FortiProxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG, whereas Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is most compared with AhnLab V3 Internet Security, Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access and Quad9. See our Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway vs. Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway report.
See our list of best Secure Web Gateways (SWG) vendors.
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.