Cisco Secure Web Appliance vs. Netskope CASB

We have both scenarios where we can describe that. For example, in the HQ, where we have about 3,000 users, Cisco IronPort Web Security Appliance is the ideal solution, because we can consolidate all the Internet access, policies, rules, etc. in the same box. However, if you have small offices with a few users, it's hard to justify one big and expensive box that could cost more than the whole office infrastructure.

Incentivized

Well suited for an organization that is either architecting their environment for majority SaaS usage, or presently is a cloud-first organization and wants greater insight into their existing cloud placements. It does provide good first-level DLP and will need to be supplemented with a purpose drive DLP control.

Incentivized

• SMA gave us central control over multiple servers, simplifying management.
• Performance of the Appliance VM exceeded that of our old physical appliance-based solution.
• Convenient licensing for virtualized environments that allows easy scaling.

Incentivized

• Monitoring all traffic
• Protecting your end user traffic

Incentivized

• I think that the interface could need updates to adapt it to a much more current system, achieve quick access to necessary tools and adapt the platform to a much more customizable and comfortable system to work with.
• It is undoubtedly a platform that is worth having, however, the license costs could be better adjusted to small businesses so that it can be accessed more easily.
• It could be a bit complex to use, the use of codes is quite extensive, it could be adjusted to something much more practical but just as efficient.

Incentivized

• Infrastructure resilience.
• Growth and scale issues.

Incentivized

Because it's one of those products you almost don't realize it exists from the end user. From the administrator perspective, you can do everything on its web interface and it's very intuitive to manage, once you know the concepts behind identities, acls, etc. Also, once you build the control structure, I mean, you link 'local' groups with your own Active Directory groups, as we did here, you don't need to be managing those things on the appliance itself.

Incentivized

Our experience with Cisco's support was terrible. Other than the fact that they don't respond to service-related emails with urgency, they also keep on changing the policies that affected us. Recently, they came up with a new look for the same software, which was insanely slow. Renewal of keys for the old interface took months. Overall, the support was not very friendly from the users' point of view.

Incentivized

There have been some struggles with their infrastructure keeping pace with demand and load. Support can only do so much and has to defer to known problems being escalated.

Incentivized

At home I have a McAfee service that does similar tasks and helps manage the users of my internet. McAfee seems more user friendly and easier to set exceptions.

Incentivized

We felt that Netskope provided a more holistic view in the CASB space from a user and usage perspective. In addition, the cost structure for Menlo was a bit higher and was a bit more complicated in the installation and maintenance perspectives

Incentivized

• Security! Security! Security! We are financial company that work with very sensitive information. A lot of unsafe traffic was blocked on the Cisco IronPort WSA over years of using it. We did not earn on it but absolutely sure that we did not lose 'gazillion' of dollars being infected or scammed.
• Easy to configure and use, no need to teach new personnel how work with this product (hopefully saving time = saving money).
• Unfortunately the price of license subscription made financial managers push IT dept. to look for something cheaper.

Incentivized

• We end up troubleshooting many not existing issues thanks to Netskope.

Incentivized