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

Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy vs Menlo Secure comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 2, 2025

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

Google Cloud Platform Cloud...
Ranking in ZTNA
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Menlo Secure
Ranking in ZTNA
27th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (32nd), Firewalls (50th), Cloud Security Remediation (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the ZTNA category, the mindshare of Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy is 2.5%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Menlo Secure is 1.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
ZTNA
 

Featured Reviews

Nobuaki Kitamura - PeerSpot reviewer
Google Cloud Platform works better with Google Workspace, stable product but a bit complicated, especially the networking
We used Google Workspace, so all my employees have Google Workspace accounts. I initially wanted to use Google Cloud Platform for subscription compatibility. Google Cloud Platform works better with Google Workspace, but unfortunately, it's a bit complicated, especially the networking. Oracle Cloud's virtual network system is much easier and more flexible. Also, Oracle was cheaper. That's the main reason we chose Oracle Cloud.
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 solution's speed, processing power, and user functionality are some of its most valuable features."
"It is a stable solution."
"We do not need to learn anything new to use the product."
"Scalability-wise, it is a great product."
"UI representation is the aspect I like the most about GCP, even more than Azure or AWS."
"We do not need to maintain the hardware."
"The solution has many features for stability and security."
"The solution is very easy to use. It's easy to navigate and to work with."
"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

"The solution should be more user-friendly and should have descriptive manuals on the page website."
"There is room for improvement in the tools and features available on the GCP. In particular, the managed databases and queues could be improved, and it would be beneficial to have more offerings in areas such as data science and data warehousing. Additionally, GCP could benefit from offering similar tools to those offered by its competitors, such as Amazon AWS's Redshift."
"The solution's security should be improved."
"The cost of licenses could be better."
"Sometimes we face uncertainty when our internet connection gets disconnected. It becomes challenging to determine whether it's an issue with our internet or if the GCP has crashed."
"The product is expensive. Its price needs improvement."
"The product’s migration process could be easier to understand."
"Google is not well supported in France."
"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."
"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."
"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

"There is a need to make yearly payments toward the solution's licensing."
"The solution's price is normal."
"The product's costing model needs improvement."
"The product is free."
"The monthly payments made towards the licensing cost of the solution are not expensive."
"Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy is expensive."
"Google Cloud Platform is cheaper than Microsoft Exchange."
"I think the price of Google Cloud Platform is reasonable. However, Microsoft is the most cost-effective solution for us because of Azure's integration. And we already have licenses for Windows Server and the databases, so the price is attractive."
"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 ZTNA solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Retailer
8%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy?
I can access the information whenever I want. It's integration is easy. The tool's GUI is easy to use with an IT background. The value benefits of using it include the ability to avoid storing data...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy?
There are different pricing plans depending on data volumes and services, but it's comparable to other providers. The value and benefits depend on what we're developing and the specific use case.
What needs improvement with Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy?
Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy should improve stability.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

GCP Cloud IAP, Google Cloud Platform Cloud IAP, Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy
Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy vs. Menlo Secure and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.