"It enables us to go granular in the customization of blocking some categories on the DNS."
"It offers good visibility for the Administrator. The administrator has full visibility of what is blocked or has the knowledge of where users go when they are surfing the internet."
"I like the original functionality, which allows for providing secure DNS services."
"I like that it integrates with the infrastructure. I also like the kind of data and intelligence that's built-in. It helps create innovative reports for security."
"The weekly reportings are great. The investigation is super and the application management is equally great."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the Web Filtering and the APT."
"The Global Block List is one of the most valuable features because it's really easy to block domain names as well as URLs. Sometimes you don't want to block the whole site, you just want to block one URL. The Global Block and Allow Lists are the best features for us."
"I think recently with many people working from home, Cisco Umbrella has been very useful. For example, we can manage the device and the network when the employee is not working on the local host. Cisco Umbrella is very valuable for this kind of infrastructure."
"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."
"It was a very easy product to install. It can be deployed very fast."
"The security aspect of the solution, particularly the malware behind it, is excellent. That's something that really helped us out. It's not just a simple proxy that just blocks the insights of potential threats that come on behind it. They do malware detection and that helps us a lot."
"It offers an easy initial setup."
"It is easy to manage. The graphical user interface is quite easy to navigate, and we don't have any difficulty in using it. It is a good solution."
"I would like to see more integration between Cisco Umbrella and Cisco DNA Center."
"We would like them to add more features to Cisco Umbrella."
"I would like to see more integrability with other products."
"The integration with Cisco could be better."
"Its on-prem rollout is quite challenging. It needs better coordination with the Internet Service Provider. It is a cloud-based solution, and any endpoint that connects to it has to go through all the gateway ISPs, but some of the ISPs block HTTPS-based DNS. That's where the challenge occurs with Umbrella."
"The pricing could always be a little bit better."
"It could be improved by having a local data center and caching, which can provide protection support. I would like to be able to channel my intel and my network traffic to their clouds, and this feature is not available. Advanced protection or any malware file support, which might be required, is not available."
"If we're trying to deploy it to a Mac through Meraki, it's impossible. The method of deployment for a Mac, and the features available in Meraki, are not compatible at all."
"File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature."
"The dashboards for local use could be better."
"The solution could be stronger on the integration side and offer more cloud applications like G Suite or Oracle."
"The reports could be better."
"The major challenge is their support. The support from Broadcom is quite poor. It takes forever for them to get back to you, and when they get back to you, they ask you for so much information, which makes it more difficult. That's the only problem I have with Broadcom. This is one of the reasons why we are switching to another solution. Another reason for switching is that we have a plan to adopt solutions in the cloud so that we can offload the administration efforts to the vendor. In future releases, they can improve its reporting and the process for rules creation. They can also improve Broadcom on things such as security information and event management so that from my same platform, I can carry out functions and probably block websites. Such a feature would be nice. Currently, Broadcom is integrated with McAfee to block access to certain sites automatically. It would be nice if they can expand their integration to IBM Resilient Security Orchestration and Automation Response."
iboss is ranked 15th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 3 reviews while Symantec Secure Web Gateway is ranked 18th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 2 reviews. iboss is rated 7.6, while Symantec Secure Web Gateway is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of iboss writes "Great security, pretty stable, and has potential to scale". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Secure Web Gateway writes "Stable and easy to use and manage, but needs better support and reporting". iboss is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Zscaler SASE, Netskope CASB, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Cisco Web Security Appliance, whereas Symantec Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Web Security Appliance, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway, Symantec Proxy and Fortinet FortiGate SWG. See our Symantec Secure Web Gateway vs. iboss 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.