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

McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service vs Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Se...
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
33rd
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Prisma Access by Palo Alto ...
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (1st), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (5th), ZTNA as a Service (2nd), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service is 0.8%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is 10.8%, up from 9.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

Featured Reviews

MF
A scalable and user-friendly tool that provides an easy-to-configure user interface
The solution is used for granular filtering. For example, an organization can use the solution to allow users to access Facebook but stop them from playing games The user interface is easy to configure. We don't have to configure a database manually. It’s already present in the product. We just…
Ángel García Favieres - PeerSpot reviewer
Experience seamless networking with reliable support and enhanced security
It is all about the interface. The Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks interface is more difficult than FortiGate. The area where we encountered most problems was the permissions system. When the client wanted to give me access, they did not want to give me super admin access because they wanted me to have access only for specific tasks. We had significant trouble with configuring those permissions and making them work, as there are many options on the permissions panel. The permissions tab should be more generalized. There are so many options that you always have to open a case for technical support. The technical support team resolved these issues effectively, but this remains an area for improvement.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The user interface is easy to configure."
"This solution provides a DLP on the cloud and very few people have a scanning device for data at rest."
"It protects all app traffic so that users can gain access to all apps. Unlike other solutions that only work from ports 80 and 443, which are predominantly for web traffic, Prisma Access covers all protocols and works on all traffic patterns... The most sophisticated attacks can arise from sources that are not behind 80/443."
"It is geographically dispersed, and it sits on top of Google and AWS platforms. Therefore, you don't face the standard issues, such as latency or bandwidth issues, that you usually face in the case of on-prem data centers."
"The features I find most valuable is WildFire, user integration, and the basic technology features."
"Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is a seamless solution."
"Prisma Access gives us security from a single point. It controls mobile users and determines how secure their networks will be, including from where they will get internet access. We can optimize things and add security profiles centrally."
"The overall rating for GlobalProtect is nine out of ten."
"The tool's consolidation is pretty quick."
 

Cons

"The product should provide more integrations."
"The user interface could be better. They need to work a little bit on the console. It is similar to their firewalls but not exactly. They need to clean it up a bit."
"The solution’s stability could be improved."
"The BGP filtering options on Prisma Access should be improved."
"Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks should consolidate the portals into a single portal. It is slow and takes more than ten seconds to load a page."
"Its integration with non-Palo Alto products can be improved. Currently, it is easy to integrate it with other Palo Alto products such as Cortex XDR. It integrates well with other Palo Alto products. A major part of our network is based on Palo Alto products, but for those companies that use multi-vendor products in their infrastructure, Palo Alto should optimize the integration of Prisma Access with the network devices from other vendors."
"Pricing for Prisma Access and Prisma SD WAN is high due to the need for different hardware flavors like IONs."
"The solution needs to be more compatible with other solutions. This is specifically a problem for us when it comes to healthcare applications. They have proprietary connection types and things of that nature that make compatibility a challenge sometimes."
"The price can be reduced to make it more competitive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Prisma Access is a little bit expensive."
"Prisma is in the middle of the road. It's not the most expensive, but it's not the cheapest. There aren't any additional costs, to my knowledge. I know they have some extra modules, but we didn't use them."
"The licensing cost is about 18,000 euros."
"This is not an expensive product and everything is included with one license."
"Palo Alto is the Cadillac solution, so their products are pretty expensive. That's just the way it is. Their solution surpasses anything else. Cisco AnyConnect, Zscaler, and all of the other products don't compare. Palo Alto is the market leader with the most features. It saves you work, and you don't have to worry about it."
"As compared to other solutions, Prisma Access is much cheaper. It is probably 30% to 40% cheaper than other solutions, but I do not know the exact cost."
"The solution requires a license and the technical support has extra costs. The licensing model could improve."
"It is not cheap. It is expensive. The good thing is that you are able to pay for what you need, but overall, it is not cheap. The pricing is not based on packages. You pay based on the features. If you want DLP, you only pay for DLP. They are very flexible. It is not cheap, but the licensing is flexible. There are no additional costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
864,155 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
25%
Insurance Company
13%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with McAfee Web Gateway Cloud Service?
The product should provide more integrations. It will benefit the customers as they can use more solutions.
What is the better solution - Prisma Access or Zscaler Private Access?
We looked into Prisma Access before choosing Zscaler Private Access (ZPA). Palo Alto’s Prisma Access is a secure access service edge (SASE) designed to deliver network security in a cloud-deliver...
What do you like most about Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks?
The most valuable features of the solution are in the areas of the secure remote access it provides while also being user-friendly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks?
From my experience, Palo Alto is more expensive compared to solutions like Netskope and Triscale.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access, Prisma Access, GlobalProtect, Palo Alto GlobalProtect Mobile Security Manager, Prisma SaaS by Palo Alto Networks, Prisma Access
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Concord Hospital, State of Colorado, Essilor International, RheinLand Versicherungsgruppe, University of Westminster, Universidade Nove de Julho, SPAR Austria, CAME Group, ZipRealty, Greenhill & Co., IKT Agder, Aviva Stadium, Animal Logic, Management & Training Corporation, Brigham Young University Hawaii, School District of Chilliwack
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Fortinet, Palo Alto Networks and others in Secure Web Gateways (SWG). Updated: July 2025.
864,155 professionals have used our research since 2012.