Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs Skyhigh Security comparison

Microsoft and Skyhigh Security are both solutions in the Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) category. Microsoft is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.5, while Skyhigh Security is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.7. Microsoft holds a 6.5% mindshare in CASB, compared to Skyhigh Security’s 3.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 91% of Skyhigh Security users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

Skyhigh Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps compete in the cloud security domain, focusing on shadow IT detection, threat detection, and data protection. Skyhigh Security appears to have the upper hand in shadow IT management and risk assessment, whereas Microsoft Defender is superior in integration within Microsoft services.

Features: Skyhigh Security leverages proxy log analyses and syslog data, providing comprehensive risk assessments and insights. It offers deep data loss prevention (DLP) capabilities and monitors abnormal activities, such as suspicious logins. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps excels in integrating with Microsoft services, providing real-time threat detection for SaaS applications. Its unified dashboard is effective for threat visibility across Microsoft applications.

Room for Improvement: Skyhigh Security needs enhancements in console performance and reporting functionality. Managing custom attributes involves individual confirmations, which can be cumbersome, and there is limited cross-cloud support. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps requires better integration with non-Microsoft environments and needs to improve its reporting functions and notification customizations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Skyhigh Security offers diverse deployment options such as on-premises, hybrid, and public cloud configurations, providing flexibility. However, its tech support experiences mixed reviews regarding promptness and knowledgeability. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps excels in cloud integration within Microsoft technologies, benefiting deployment in public cloud environments. Its customer support is rated highly, but complex cases sometimes experience delays.

Pricing and ROI: Skyhigh Security's pricing model is based on user subscriptions and can be expensive, especially for API integrations. It is valued for its ROI in comprehensive cloud service monitoring. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is cost-efficient within Microsoft E5 and E3 license bundles but can be costly when purchased separately. Its ROI is acknowledged through seamless integration with Microsoft's suite. Skyhigh is noted for robust shadow IT management, while Microsoft offers broader integration benefits within its ecosystem.

To learn more, read our detailed Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Skyhigh Security Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Skyhigh Security

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,515 peers since 2012

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

iboss

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) category, the mindshare of iboss is 2.5%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is 6.5%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Skyhigh Security is 3.3%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps	6.5%
iboss	2.5%
Skyhigh Security	3.3%
Other	87.7%

Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)

Featured Reviews

reviewer2701851

Managing Director

Enhances web security with a single pane of glass and flexible deployment

I don't see any need for improvement; one of the really good things about iboss as a company is that they listen to customer feedback. I have suggested enhancements, and they are responsive, making changes for the better, and they do a lot of testing. To improve iboss, although we haven't used it, we considered the VPN solution that comes with the highest tier licensing, which includes DLP and various other add-ons. We prefer using another product which automatically logs you back onto your network when turning on your PC. With iboss, the connection is manual, which doesn't meet our needs. Additionally, sizing can be tricky because, although the initial recommendations may seem adequate, actual usage may require more gateways than anticipated.

Read full review

Frank Van Der Spek

Security and Continuity Manager at Rolinco NV

Deployment has been seamless with insightful data categorization and enhanced control

The features of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps that I have found most valuable include the overall portal view, with bubble graphs which give us insight into what goes where in the categorization, nowadays with Generative AI but all kinds of categorization, collaboration, etc. That central view of the portal is very useful for us. The impact of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps on our organization's ability to assess and manage app related risks has been significant because we have more visibility. Therefore, we can add more control, and we have already done so. This was not possible in the old solution, in the old CASB solution with Netskope. We now can see on the spot, and we do that almost weekly, what the end users are utilizing, which cloud providers or cloud apps they're using. The visibility into OAuth apps provided by Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is very good. The visibility into risk and risk management of our organization's Generative AI apps is very nice, as you can choose the category Generative AI and then see exactly what traffic has been going to and from Generative AI in the cloud. This makes us very insightful on what is used within the company. We have some policies on blocking specific Generative AI, and we use within our company one particular AI part, which is CoPilot of Microsoft. In this way, we can see what the end users are using other than CoPilot, and that makes us more in control. The effectiveness of the integration of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps with Defender XDR and defending against SaaS attacks is very intuitive. It works immediately if we create a new policy or in Purview or in Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, or when we make an app unsanctioned by blocking it, then it is almost immediately, or at least within a couple of hours, effective on all the endpoints where the EDR is running. This gives us much better control over things than before.

Read full review

Eunsok Kim

Secure at ESCARE COLtd

Secure web access has improved threat protection while certificate management still needs work

It depends on the environment, I think, and I am saying that not all, but in Korea, most of the customers prefer on-premise. The setup and configuration process for Skyhigh Security can be short as a month, but regularly three months, and long as six months. The deployment may last up to half a year. I think analytics are better for understanding security posture, but actually, I was using the Web Gateway, so all the analysis and logs were made by Linux, which I do not prefer because they have so many things to do. It is good for the customer, but not for me. I think with the cloud, cloud SWG, anyone can access through the proxy, which is the good part, and it is something they can tell someone that is their strength. My overall rating for this product is seven out of ten.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"iboss is among the few products providing inline filtering where no application is needed on the device. It operates on the network side and is not device-based. This feature was one of the main reasons why we stayed with them for so long."

"First of all, the security policies are essential. I do not have to rely solely on Active Directory for our users."

"I would rate the technical support of iboss a solid 10 without a shadow of a doubt."

"I would definitely recommend iboss for web filtering purposes to other organizations or individuals."

"iboss has significantly lowered the number of security incidents. It is crazy how much it blocks and how much it is aware of the outside danger."

"From a use-case scenario, what I like the most is the plug-in. I like the fact that we can do the filtering of these devices offsite independent of the network they are connected to, and we do not have to have traffic coming back inside our network."

"iboss is easy to use despite its complexity. Multiple engineers manage it, but it's significantly more straightforward to administer than traditional VPNs and web proxies."

"Granular setup, which was able to set different levels of filters using the OUs in the AD."

More iboss pros

"The product helps us with privileged identity management to control who has access to what and for how long."

"Defender's integration with our identity solutions is critical in our current setup."

"The general usability of the solution is very straightforward."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is its monitoring."

"It does a great job of monitoring and maintaining a security baseline. For us, that is a key element. The notifications are pretty good."

"Shadow IT discovery is the feature I like the most."

"The most valuable feature is the ease of management. It's important."

"Defender for Cloud Apps has given us good visibility regarding what we've allowed in our environment until now. It helps us to know our inventory, understand what our customers are using, and steer them toward safer practices."

More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps pros

"Shadow IT reporting capabilities."

"It help us monitor high risk services, blocking them, and also feeding them to our egress points."

"The initial setup is fairly straightforward and easy to perform."

"I personally don't have any issues with the performance or the stability of the solution."

"The feature I found most valuable is the API."

"Skyhigh performs well, and we can choose from virtual and hardware plans. We can deploy the ISO on as many virtual machines as possible and easily set up high availability on the web proxy. The location doesn't matter. The user at a site will always access the web proxy for that location. It's suitable for an organization distributed across multiple regions."

"The threat protection capabilities are very strong."

"They were very, very aggressive in the market to get a new market share or to take over market share while other companies were being broken up."

More Skyhigh Security pros

Cons

"SSL decryption: We had issues with learners using apps instead of using web browsers. This type of encryption is tough for any appliance in a BYOD environment."

"I am currently doing a PoC of the zero trust aspect of it. Compared to other similar solutions, it is hard to get around each feature. It takes a while to get used to it."

"For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company ExxonMobil."

"If they could implement an extra security layer preventing access to iboss from the open internet, it would be great."

"Our iboss subscription access should be more secure with an OTP or VPN etc. It is easy to gain access if, for example, hackers obtain my username and password."

"Sometimes the agent stops working in iboss, and we have to reinstall the agent."

"Our biggest problem with their service was it did not recognize the device and filtering did not always work correctly."

More iboss cons

"The product is very good so far, however, it would be better if it could include more up-to-date threat protection."

"We would like to get more information from the endpoint. I don't get enough detailed information right now on why something failed. There is not enough visibility."

"The documentation could be improved as it is not updated immediately when Microsoft makes changes. Users must wait a few weeks for the changes to be reflected in the documentation."

"An area of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps that needs to be improved or enhanced is the reporting function. In the beginning, there was a good reporting function which gave us a sort of monthly overview report. But that has gone away."

"The insights could be improved, especially in reporting. While it is possible for me to see the usage from different cloud apps, determining if critical data has been uploaded or if it is just normal transport data is difficult."

"It doesn't actually decrease the time to respond. This has been an issue with Microsoft recently. Sometimes, there is a delay when it comes to getting an alert policy email... Sometimes it takes two or three hours for that email to be sent."

"The insights could be improved, especially in reporting."

"Defender could integrate better with multi-cloud and hybrid environments. It requires some additional configuration to ingest data from non-Azure environments and integrate it with Sentinel."

More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps cons

"The feature that we would like to have is a hybrid environment, including both cloud and on-premises."

"User interface could be more intuitive."

"You can integrate Skyhigh's rules with Active Directory groups. For example, you can allow access to a specific website for a defined set of users. I can do that, but the rules are not straightforward. It can look up the group in Active Directory. However, it doesn't always find the proper group name. The rule configuration should be simpler and more granular. The admin should be able to map 80 groups in the rules quickly."

"An area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is its UI. It needs to be enhanced and made more user-friendly. Right now, the UI of Skyhigh Security is sometimes confusing. For example, my company is deploying Skyhigh Security for a client and integrating it on the cloud, from an on-premises deployment to a hybrid deployment. Though the experience isn't bad, there needs to be more enhancements. Another room for improvement in Skyhigh Security is the limited training resources, especially when you compare it with Cisco, which has many study materials in the market, even free training resources. You'll get limited resources if you search for Skyhigh Security tutorials on Google and YouTube. Because of high-security requirements and the training material for Skyhigh Security not being available, most engineers and architects avoid the product because there'd be a lack of knowledge in configuring and achieving the goals you'd want to reach via the use of Skyhigh Security. The NOC team deploying the product is having difficulty getting training resources for Skyhigh Security. You'll be charged an enormous amount if you search the market for training because of the limited resources available. Skyhigh Security needs to work on marketing and awareness as an improvement to the product."

"I would like to see more power being given to the admin. In the sense that in case an employee is facing an issue and they want to configure a service, like attaching an email in Gmail, for example, they should be given the option to make the service request and get that configured on the go."

"You have to have some kind of background with cloud-based security, like working with different providers and how to make instances in the clouds and that kind of stuff - including cloud, networking cloud, cloud application development, anything like that is a requirement to be in the CASB space."

"The cloud needs improvement with respect to DLP."

"The solution is hard to configure, our team does not have specific training requirements for McAfee making it difficult."

More Skyhigh Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."

"It is expensive compared to one of its competitors."

"It is not expensive, and it is also not cheap. iboss is priced right in the sweet spot for the number of features it offers."

"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."

"We had the cost of purchasing a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs. However, the following year, the cost of just licensing was similar to what was paid the previous year for a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs."

"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."

"Where we are right now, this is an acceptable pricing. I would like to see more transparency given to the end user. The end user given to us is via the cloud service provider. There are different programs and license models. Some include this, and some include that. It is all over the place. There can be a little more consistency or simplification in the pricing so that your parts list is not ten pages long, and you are not trying to determine, "If I have an E3, does this cover that?", or "Do I need to pay separately for the license?" Simplification would probably be better."

"Its pricing is on the higher side. Its price is definitely very high for a small-scale company. As an enterprise client, we do get benefits from Microsoft. We get a discounted price because of the number of users we have in our company. We have a premier package, and with that, we do get a lot of discounts. There are no additional costs. It only comes in the top-tier packages. Generally, the top-tier license is the best license that you can get for your organization. If you want, you can buy it separately, but that's not a good idea."

"We have an educational licensing agreement. It's a customer agreement for multiple years."

"The product's pricing seems fair."

"Our clients normally use the Microsoft E1 licensing, which is renewed yearly."

"I'm not totally involved in the pricing part, but I think its pricing is quite aggressive, and its price is quite similar to Netskope. Netskope has separate licensing fees or additional charges if you want to monitor certain SaaS services, whereas, with MCAS, you get 5,000 applications with their Office 365. It is all bundled, and there's no cost for using that. You only have the operational costs. In the country I am in, it is a bit difficult to get people with the required skill sets."

"The E5 license offers everything bundled. People are moving to Microsoft because you buy one license and it gives you everything."

"It is a little bit expensive. When you want to have the complete package with Office 365, Defender, and everything else, it is expensive."

More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps pricing and cost advice

"The solution is quite expensive. As we take add-ons continuously as per our customer's requirements, there are additional charges."

"The price of the solution is good and we pay an annual license."

"The licensing fees are based on what environments you are monitoring."

"The biggest thing to watch for is the difference in price per monitored user for the different API integrations."

"They definitely charge a huge amount. All the security service providers charge a huge amount."

"Skyhigh provided a FedRAMP solution, tokenization, a better shadow IT capability, and lower cost."

"It's an expensive solution."

"Have a risk-based approach towards pricing."

More Skyhigh Security pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,515 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

11%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

10%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	5

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	10
Large Enterprise	19

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	30
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	37

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?

For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company Exxon...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for iboss?

Previously when I used iboss, we did the POC for iboss for ExxonMobil. Four or five people wanted to move from our ol...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for iboss?

Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, iboss is not cheap, and that's my only concern. There are cheaper alte...

See all answers

Which is the better security solution - Cisco Umbrella or Microsoft Cloud App Security?

Cisco Umbrella is an integral component of the Cisco SASE architecture. It integrates security in a single, cloud-nat...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Cloud App Security?

At the time of implementation, when the size of our organization was small, it was a more affordable product. Since a...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Microsoft Cloud App Security?

The fidelity of the signal in Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps has been a challenge in some areas. There have been i...

See all answers

What needs improvement with McAfee Web Gateway?

So far, only the certification part caused me some issues and some challenges. The certification requires some improv...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for McAfee Web Gateway?

I am familiar with Skyhigh and Symantec. The customer's AWS environment is being used, so that understanding is corre...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering McAfee Web Gateway?

It depends on the environment, I think, and I am saying that not all, but in Korea, most of the customers prefer on-p...

See all answers

Comparisons

Netskope vs iboss

Compared 12% of the time

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs iboss

Compared 10% of the time

Cisco Umbrella vs iboss

Compared 7% of the time

FortiSASE vs iboss

Compared 7% of the time

More iboss Competitors

Zscaler Internet Access vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps

Compared 13% of the time

Cisco Umbrella vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps

Compared 11% of the time

Netskope vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps

Compared 10% of the time

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps

Compared 7% of the time

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps

Compared 4% of the time

More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Competitors

Netskope vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 10% of the time

Zscaler Internet Access vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 5% of the time

Forcepoint ONE vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 5% of the time

Avanan vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 4% of the time

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 4% of the time

More Skyhigh Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

iboss

January 2026

Download iboss product report

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps

January 2026

Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps report

Download Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps product report

Buyer's Guide

Skyhigh Security

January 2026

Download Skyhigh Security product report

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform

MS Cloud App Security, Microsoft Cloud App Security

McAfee MVISION Cloud, McAfee MVISION Unified Cloud Edge, McAfee Web Gateway, McAfee MVISION CNAPP, and Skyhigh Networks, McAfee Web Gateway

Interactive Demo

Demo not available

iboss

Demo not available

Microsoft

Skyhigh Security

Overview

Iboss offers a comprehensive cloud-based security platform valued for its scalability and autonomous features, ensuring robust security with easy deployment and management capabilities.

Renowned for its robust security architecture, Iboss integrates seamlessly within diverse networks, delivering efficient granular filtering and advanced content categorization. Its single pane of glass console provides ease of management, allowing rapid scalability suitable for rapidly deploying environments. Operates in BYOD setups due to inline filtering without device installation. Integration with cloud-based applications enhances user control, and features like SASE, SSL inspection, and ChatGPT risk protection stand as highlights. Despite its strengths, users have pointed out areas for enhancement like direct navigation in reports, SSL decryption, and better cloud integration while having room to improve data loss prevention.

What are the most important features of Iboss?

Scalability: Supports rapid deployment across diverse networks.
SASE: A consolidated approach to secure access.
SSL Inspection: Ensures safe data transmission.
Granular Filtering: Detailed control over accessible content.
Single Pane Management: Unifies control through a centralized console.

What benefits should users consider in reviews?

Cost-effectiveness: Offers competitive pricing with robust features.
Autonomous Operation: Reduces management overhead.
Responsive Support: Provides assistance when needed.
Flexible Deployment: Available for both cloud and on-premises environments.

The usage of Iboss spans educational institutions, specifically K-12, to enforce internet policies, protect data, and support remote work environments. It provides web filtering and security frameworks to ensure safe browsing. Its platform-as-a-service model offers flexibility for both cloud-based and on-premises requirements, integrating seamlessly to deliver enhanced security features suitable for various deployment needs including zero trust, CASB, and network security for work-from-home setups.

iboss

Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is a comprehensive security solution that provides protection for cloud-based applications and services. It offers real-time threat detection and response, as well as advanced analytics and reporting capabilities. With Defender for Cloud Apps, organizations can ensure the security of their cloud environments and safeguard against cyber threats. Whether you're running SaaS applications, IaaS workloads, or PaaS services, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps can help you secure your cloud environment and protect your business from cyber threats.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Benefits:

Provides comprehensive security for cloud applications
Integrates with other Microsoft security tools
Easy to use and deploy
Provides real-time threat detection and response
Strong protection against phishing attacks and other common threats
Highly customizable to meet specific needs of different organizations

Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Use Cases:

Governance, authentication, security, and compliance.
Detects shadow IT and anomalous user behavior
Controls access to applications
Provides auditing and filtering setups
Used for end-user compute devices, file monitoring, user investigation, and activity
Used for data governance, threat detection, and getting visibility over cloud applications
Used to identify information about applications beyond organizational boundaries
Prevent exfiltration and data filtration of corporate data
Used to deal with spam emails and detect shadow IT

Reviews from Real Users

Ram-Krish, Cloud Security & Governance at a financial services firm, says that Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps "Integrates well and helps us in protecting sensitive information, but takes time to scan and apply the policies and cannot detect everything we need".

PeerSpot user, Senior Cloud & Security Consultant at a tech services, writes that Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps "Great for monitoring user activity and protecting data while integrating well with other applications".

Simon Burgess,Infrastructure Engineer at SBITSC, states that Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is "A fluid, intelligent product for great visibility, centralized management, and increased uptime".

Microsoft

Skyhigh Security protects organizations with cloud-based Zero Trust security solutions that are both data-aware and simple to use. Skyhigh’s Security Service Edge portfolio goes beyond data access and focuses on data use, allowing organizations to collaborate from any device and from anywhere without sacrificing security, while providing the visibility and control required to monitor and mitigate security risks.

The Skyhigh Security Service Edge portfolio includes Skyhigh Secure Web Gateway, Skyhigh Cloud Access Security Broker, Skyhigh Private Access, and Skyhigh Cloud Native Application Protection Platform. All solutions form a fully converged, consolidated platform, and are managed from the same single console.

Skyhigh Cloud Access Security Broker protects data and stops threats in the cloud across SaaS, and PaaS, and IaaS environments from a single, cloud-native enforcement point. It enables organizations to accelerate their business by giving them visibility and control over their data in the cloud and protection from threats with a frictionless deployment model.
Skyhigh Secure Web Gateway connects and secures your workforce from malicious websites and cloud apps from anywhere, any application, and any device. It protects users from threats and data loss with integrated Remote Browser Isolation, Cloud Access Security Broker and Data Loss Prevention capabilities while providing the ability to access the web and cloud.
Skyhigh Private Access is the data centric Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) solution that provides integrated Data Loss Prevention scanning and seamless Remote Browser Isolation integration for robust data protection, using Zero Trust principles. Apply a unified policy across web, SaaS, and private apps.
Skyhigh Cloud Native Application Protection Platform is the industry’s first platform to extend Cloud Access Security Broker, bringing application and data context to converge Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with IaaS Data Loss Prevention for IaaS public clouds. Skyhigh CNAPP provides consistent data protection, threat prevention, governance, and compliance throughout the cloud-native application development lifecycle.

Skyhigh Security Benefits

Modern Data Protection. Extensible data protection policies to determine what can be accessed, shared, and how it can be used.
Zero Trust for the Cloud. Extend zero trust to the cloud ensuring that your sensitive data is accessed, shared, and stored appropriately.
Actionable Insights. Unified view of data and risk, regardless of where and how the policy is enforced.

Skyhigh Security Features

99.999% Uptime. Connects users seamlessly and without disruption through Hyperscale Service Edge with cloud-native web security that operates with ultra-low latency and 99.999% uptime.
Remote Browser Isolation. Prevents threats of a web page from reaching endpoints with intelligent, multi-layer remote browser isolation technology that provides secure web browsing through robust machine learning analysis on real-time telemetry.
Cloud Registry. The world’s largest and most accurate registry of cloud services based on a customizable 261-point risk assessment to support risk-aware cloud governance.

Skyhigh Security

Sample Customers

More than 4,000 global enterprises trust the iboss Cloud Platform to support their modern workforces, including a large number of Fortune 50 companies.

Customers for Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps include Accenture, St. Luke’s University Health Network, Ansell, and Nakilat.

Western Union.Aetna.DirecTV.Adventist.Equinix.Perrigo.Goodyear.HP.Cargill.Sony.Bank of the West.Prudential.

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Skyhigh Security

December 2025

Free Report: Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Skyhigh Security

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Skyhigh Security and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,515 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Skyhigh Security report.

See our list of best Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) vendors.

We monitor all Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) 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.