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

Fortinet FortiProxy 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

Fortinet FortiProxy
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 July 2025, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of Fortinet FortiProxy is 5.5%, up from 4.9% 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

Emmanuel Dasho - PeerSpot reviewer
Ease of configuration and seamless integration enhance operational efficiency
The App Control feature in the Fortinet FortiProx * Deep Packet Inspection (DPI): FortiProxy analyzes traffic at the application layer to detect applications even if they use non-standard ports or are encrypted. * Application Signatures: Uses FortiGuard’s application signature database (constantly updated) to recognize thousands of applications. * Policy Enforcement: You can create policies to Allow, Block, Monitor, or Shape (QoS) based on application type, category, or specific apps.
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

"It is a really stable solution."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiProxy are its simplicity and performance."
"It seamlessly integrates with various security products, enhancing threat intelligence and improving indicators of compromise."
"It helps to secure the networks at the DNA level and ensure proper identification and filtering of DNS traffic."
"The tool's most valuable feature is traffic inspections."
"The most valuable feature is intrusion prevention (IPS) and antivirus profiles. These features help control user activity, ensuring that they access only permitted websites and protects from downloading viruses."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its granular access control. For example, users can browse the main site if you allow access to Amazon, but it stops them from visiting secondary Amazon websites without specific permission. This granular control is really helpful."
"We can use Fortinet FortiProxy configuration for your network."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"Fortinet FortiProxy should improve by adding more documentation and guides."
"For IT administrators and managers, the reporting features are the main issues that should be addressed in order to improve the performance, security, and effective utilization of the product."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its granular access control. For example, users can browse the main site if you allow access to Amazon, but it stops them from visiting secondary Amazon websites without specific permission. This granular control is really helpful."
"Its web filtering capabilities could be improved."
"Its power supply process for some of the proxies needs improvement."
"Integration with existing infrastructure was generally easy, especially if you had tools like LDAP. However, I had to go through a lot of documentation as it was my first time working with a proxy server. We did experience some issues with certain web applications not working properly after implementing Fortinet FortiProxy."
"I see that the solution's interface is not in French...It would be good for our company if we could have the tool interface in French."
"Fortinet FortiProxy should integrate AI/ML technologies. Its pricing needs to be more flexible."
"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."
"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."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's pricing is in the middle."
"It can be considered expensive, with a limited lifespan and support that eventually requires updating to newer solutions."
"It is a cost-effective solution."
"It offers a more cost-effective solution than alternatives like FortiMail, FortiGate, and various Barracuda devices."
"The solution is neither too expensive nor very cheap."
"Price-wise, Fortinet FortiProxy is moderate - not the highest among competitors, but not cheap either."
"It is appropriately priced for what they're doing for us. Considering the protection provided, I feel their pricing is spot-on."
"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."
"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.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
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 Fortinet FortiProxy?
The tool's most valuable feature is traffic inspections.
What needs improvement with Fortinet FortiProxy?
For me it may be the wildcards for urls whitelist or blacklist, somehow the page loads. Aside from that there no other..
What advice do you have for others considering Fortinet FortiProxy?
My advice to others who are considering Fortinet FortiProxy is that it is seamless, easy to use, and quite straightforward. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution an 9.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

FortiProxy
Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Fortinet FortiProxy vs. Menlo Secure and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.