We performed a comparison between Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker and Skyhigh Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is stable."
"On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"The quarantine feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The product is stable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is reporting. It helps us understand what's going on in our environment."
"From stability and availability standpoints, it is pretty good."
"Shadow IT reporting capabilities."
"All the information available on each service, including its risk assessment."
"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."
"The support is excellent."
"In terms of their compatibility with major cloud providers, in terms of their abilities, capabilities, and features, they exceed everyone's capabilities in the CASB market."
"The solution performs well."
"I personally don't have any issues with the performance or the stability of the solution."
"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."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"I think some of the hiccups that we had were with the number of domains that we had and how that had to be implemented in Proofpoint."
"The TLS encryption needs to be improved. It's not state of the art."
"Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker should be cheaper."
"They are priced significantly higher and less cost-effective than alternative options."
"I think that the User Interface could be improved."
"Support for securing more cloud apps."
"They could be integrated with CASB. I think normally McAfee has this solution in the cloud, but for us the best is on-premise."
"The performance of the tool can be improved to provide faster report generation."
"Iron out the few bugs that I've seen."
"Its initial setup could be more straightforward."
"There isn't really any aspect that is lacking."
"McAfee needs to add more products that could be managed from the cloud."
More Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker Pricing and Cost Advice →
Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is ranked 14th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 4 reviews while Skyhigh Security is ranked 5th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 51 reviews. Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is rated 8.0, while Skyhigh Security is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker writes "A highly stable spam filtering solution that can be managed and used by a large number of users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Skyhigh Security writes "Good scalability, but the technical support service needs improvement". Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access and Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection, whereas Skyhigh Security is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Symantec Proxy and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks. See our Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker 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.