The Forcepoint ONE Secure Web Gateway (SWG) is one of the three foundational gateways of the Forcepoint ONE all-in-one cloud platform. Forcepoint ONE SWG monitors and controlsany interaction with any website, including blocking access to websites based on category and risk score, blocking download of malware, blocking upload of sensitive data to personal filesharing accounts, detecting shadow IT, and optionally providingRemote Browser Isolation (RBI) with Content Disarm andReconstruction (CDR).
N/A
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) solutions apply proactive threat intelligence and defenses across the entire attack lifecycle to keep organizations safer and more resilient.
N/A
Pricing
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Forcepoint SWG
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Considered Both Products
Forcepoint SWG
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Forcepoint SWG
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and F5 Big-IP Advanced WAF
Forcepoint [Web Security] services are [...] cost-effective and provide better ROI for small/medium and even large enterprises without losing any important features. They also have controls for all the channels and technology areas.
We were not yet ready to replace the firewall, so we chose a separate solution that integrates with our network. We also looked at Ironport but could not get a supported configuration (our partner did not support it).
Forcepoint Web Security provided off-network coverage which was not possible utilizing the on-premises deployment of the Cisco Secure Web Appliance that we were previously using. The Forcepoint Web Security product was more cost-effective for the specific feature set that we …
Forcpoint Web Security keeps my organization's users safe from malicious threats, including zero-day threats. It protects against zero-day threats with real-time threat intelligence and remote browser isolation, and provides deep content inspection for encrypted and unencrypted …
I am aware of another cybersecurity specialist in another organization that utilized the Acronis Cyber Cloud for Enterprise but cannot speak to its usage. I can only say that the Forcepoint products and history of support alongside its powerful reputation is one of the largest …
Forcepoint Web Security stacks up against them because Forcepoint is easy to install and get running. Forcepoint also has great support and notifies our organization when there are updates. I also appreciate the analytics and features Forcepoint has to offer.
To be honest, once using Forcepoint for our Web Security, I have not wanted to look anywhere else. The dashboard gives me quick insight of threats, productivity, and bandwidth usage. Again, this is a layer in my security and it fills many holes. I feel safe and I do like I can …
Forcepoint was one of the first web security appliances deployed by our organisation for content filtering and protecting from other complex web threats.
We chose Forcepoint Web security over other vendors as it is the best in its class in my opinion. It is used by a number of large organizations and government agencies and it has enormous expansion/integration capabilities with other modules e.g. CASB, DLP which all play a …
I purchased an up-and-coming product called SurfControl in 1999. Although I don't know who acquired SurfControl or when, I know that I just stuck with it, and I haven't had to evaluate another web security product in over 20 years, and that's a good thing.
FortiGate offers more granularity over the cloud, but the hybrid seems to be just what we need. We will be moving forward with the hybrid deployment over FortiGate. We would like to thank the POC engineers for helping us make this decision. We look forward to a fruitful …
Forcepoint's preassigned policies are a great way to get started. Sourcefire was much more transparent on what was happening to each packet and where it came from and to. But adding in rules and fine tuning the URL filtering was difficult. It took considerably more effort to …
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS interfaces better with other tools and is simpler to use. provides wider endpoint protection and more centralized control than SentinelOne's automatic response. Trellix Endpoint Security ENS preserves McAfee's dependability while offering newer …
At the time we took the decision all other products seemed to be complicated in usage and licensing. Trellix was very simple in all the aspects: licensing, usage, support. It also was very simple to deploy, setup and manage. Product interface was simple to understand and even …
All in one protection for endpoint devices, the data loss prevention, and adaptive threat protection is the best advantage against other competitors. The cost for the platform and service is very effective and efficient. The usage and capability of this software is very edge …
Unlike Trellix Endpoint Security Symantec Endpoint provides less information about events on the user side. Trellix give an opportunity to see information about virus detection on a user machine as quick as it possible, so we were able to catch the signs of virus propagation …
It has fewer false positive issues. It also provides more compatibility with a variety of different OS versions. The sensor installation is easy to use, update and maintain as well as the reporting capabilities that it can offer are more robust than the ones that other …
Compared to its competitors like Cisco, McAfee is cheaper. At the competitive pricing levels, McAfee Endpoint Security does a good job. Although it stacks up finely against decent priced solutions but it doesn't provide superior service if the price limit is scaled down or up. …
Compared to Endgame and AMP, McAfee Endpoint Security doesn't hold a candle to them when it comes to detecting/advanced identifying malware or zero days. Since Mcafee Endpoint Security is signature-based, it is way behind the curve with newer anti-malware tools that can focus …
We were using Microsoft Defender in the beginning as it was free and quite good. But as we got acquired by a large MNC, we were asked to switch to McAfee as we had to follow the company guidelines which takes data security very seriously and personally. I think the switch did …
The solution is already in place when I join the organization. I do not have any information on what other antivirus software they evaluated before decided to purchase McAfee Endpoint Security.
McAfee is a strong, if not strongest A/V solution in the endpoint security space. It's wide adoption and strong support and positive reviews from companies like Gartner and Forrester back it up.
If you have Cisco tools and equipment globally in place and just for the clients additionally McAfee you should have a deeper look. We wanted to install end-2-end security over all networks and hardware. This was a big point for Cisco. For a managed client team, Cisco is a step …
McAfee Endpoint Security has a better GUI, better pricing, stronger features, and agent deployment is much faster. Their firewall is extremely good, and for those reasons I would firmly recommend it over other solutions (Kaspersky, Symantec etc). Like I mentioned earlier, do …
McAfee Endpoint Security provides a single platform for Firewall, AV and web control. With the new console and integration between the components, threat detection is superior.
McAfee is a cheaper price point, however Kaspersky out performs McAfee in every category. We went with McAfee, because many of the team members in IT were familar with it, less training (short term), and lower cost (short term)
Advanced Threat Protection, or ATP in Office 365 was awful. Some attachments wouldn't be delivered at all while others took minutes and sometimes hours to be delivered after being scanned. It was causing us to lose business. FireEye processes attachments in less than 60 seconds …
We only selected McAfee because we are already using ESET NOD32 for the protection of our desktops and laptops. We didn't want to use the same software for our servers so we chose McAfee instead. I personally like ESET Smart Security better than McAfee when deploying it on a …
Over the years, [in our experience], the maintenance of the Forcepoint Web Security solution proved to be more cumbersome and troublesome with each version upgrade. In addition, it did not transition well to support the large increase of remote workers. We also experienced weird incompatibilities with the client. We have since replaced this solution with Zscaler Internet Access, a cloud-based secure web gateway solution with a client that behaves as expected, is more flexible, and requires significantly less administration.
During the pandemic all our users worked remotely that was challenging from security perspective, so we had to deploy the endpoint protection system with cloud based monitoring server. By doing that we were able to keep safety for users workspaces even though some of them did not connect to VPN for a long time
This package is one of the few that offers a category, quota time, that allows us to limit certain categories and or websites for staff that would normally be blocked for customers and may not be something that is needed in their day to day job duties. We allow staff one hour a day, broken down into six 10 min increments, to visit sites for shopping, travel arrangement and other areas that are more of a personal need than a business need.
Forcepoint has a wide selection of categories that can be enabled, quota timed or restricted at a top-level or you can go more granular and drill down to subcategories to allow for only partial access.
The user access logs contain a lot of useless information. I understand this is very hard to tackle as I've seen this across any product that logs web activity.
I would like to see more customization options of website block pages.
My biggest flak with McAfee Endpoint Security is that it is quite resource-intensive. It does tend to make the system a little slow. You get security at the expense of your machine's speed.
Even though the drive encryption makes the system more secure, it takes a lot of time to first enter the very long password, and then for it to decrypt the whole machine. This sometimes clashes with Windows update and causes a lot of complications which leads to boot loops.
It is very stable, the organisation has "locked in" the product and has no plans to change or try another product. We have already renewed our 2019-2020 licenses. It is user friendly and people catch on easily when they first use it. The only downtime is when we install Microsoft updates! It has excellent reporting which help in determining how the organisation's Internet is used and also during both internal and external IT audits.
Despite the intimidating Linux CLI when you use the appliance for troubleshooting, the web security usability compensates as most of the Administration of the system is done there. It is GUI based and has an easy to use UI where one can navigate around rather easily like getting reports, checking alerts, looking the whole setup under deployment to check if all services are running in one place though there are other parts to the system.
The is a quick first response to acknowledge your issue and the Engineers never take more than two hours to fix an issue and we hardly get issues looking at the fact that the system is pretty stable. There is also a robust Knowledge Base in the site for known problems.
The support is pretty good, and I haven't had any issues with getting the highest quality technical support when there are issues. Tech support representatives that I have dealt with know the product quite well and have solved many issues that I have had with the product in the past. The only issue I have with support is that it can be quite expensive.
Research known issues with upgrading from the Support Knowledge base, this will enable you avoid road blocks along the way and reduce your dependence on Forcepoint Support
To be honest, once using Forcepoint for our Web Security, I have not wanted to look anywhere else. The dashboard gives me quick insight of threats, productivity, and bandwidth usage. Again, this is a layer in my security and it fills many holes. I feel safe and I do like I can just let it do its thing
We only selected McAfee because we are already using ESET NOD32 for the protection of our desktops and laptops. We didn't want to use the same software for our servers so we chose McAfee instead. I personally like ESET Smart Security better than McAfee when deploying it on a desktop or laptop because I think it protects the PC better. When it comes to web protection, policy updates, etc., McAfee is the better choice and that's why we deployed it on our servers.
This tool helped us in delegating the asset safety responsibility to the client level by 80%, leaving 20% for the management console.
With a decent pricing, the benefits are slightly above expectations. The ROI is good.
But, considering most of the malware comes from internet, with a good email security appliance and next gen firewall in place, the online security alerts are now redundant. It could be something that can be termed as overkill on the budget.