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
8th
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) (31st), Firewalls (51st), Cloud Security Remediation (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the ZTNA category, the mindshare of Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy is 2.7%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Menlo Secure is 0.8%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
ZTNA
 

Featured Reviews

Kodanda Ramji C.S - PeerSpot reviewer
Involves an initial setup phase that is straightforward in nature
My company evaluates whether the product is capable of fulfilling the requirements of our customers, and we may even do it with the other OEM tools in the market. Based on the use cases given to my company by its customers, we evaluate whether Azure, AWS, or GCP can be helpful. Among the three cloud options, the ones that are able to fulfill our company's customers' requirements will be evaluated, and their report will be submitted to the manager. Based on the costing part, customers can decide which OEM tool would be the best for them. My company does technical and financial evaluation of the products. As there were no operational changes and only initial implementation was required, which was a part of the PoC phase, there wasn't much of an impact on the user experience. All the three service providers, like GCP, Azure and AWS are used to meet the same requirements. I would say that the same benefits are made available to users by all the service providers. The differentiation part can be considered only on the basis of the costs. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.
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

"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 on local machines, reducing the risk of data loss"
"The solution has many features for stability and security."
"The initial setup wasn't too difficult."
"The tool is really good, especially for ease of implementation and having many options. We can build complex data pipelines and AI models, like web-based AI assistants or chatbots."
"The latest versions of the managed Kubernetes clusters are good."
"It is easy to integrate, especially if I consider the fact that it gives me a single dashboard where I have all the applications or apps displayed."
"It's reliable."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"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."
"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

"It is an expensive solution, so I would like its price to be improved."
"The solution's security should be improved."
"Sometimes, it just fails to get some documents, and then it resumes normally. Google should work to enhance the overall features of the solution."
"The UI of the solution is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy has certain limitations as a document or file management system, especially for non-workspace accounts. Manual management is required for most actions, and group management can be challenging. The process of managing permissions individually is time-consuming and not very efficient. For education purposes, the collaboration tools for working on files, assignments, and groups need improvement. The existing tools are inadequate and can be difficult to work with. Additionally, the grading books for teachers are not very useful and require improvement."
"The initial setup was quite complex."
"We have some challenges related to purging the data. We get a lot of data on a daily basis that has to be refreshed on the site, but we are seeing some challenges with that. They can also include some third-party integration. We have one Akamai dependency. If they can come up with some API to talk to Akamai, it would be good."
"the documentation could be a bit better in terms of what is presented on the screen versus what actually happens."
"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."
"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."
"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 free."
"When comparing the price of GCP to other solutions it provides more value for the money."
"The solution's price is normal."
"There are some costs attached to the licensing part of Google Cloud Platform, but it does not pose a challenge."
"Its price is good. For each server, we are saving $300 a month. We have at least thousands of servers. It is a huge cost reduction for us."
"The licensing costs us $100,000 so pricing could be better."
"The price of the product falls on the cheaper side of the spectrum."
"The product's costing model needs improvement."
"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."
"It is appropriately priced for what they're doing for us. Considering the protection provided, I feel their pricing is spot-on."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ZTNA solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Comms Service Provider
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

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: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.