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

Check Point Web Gateway vs Skyhigh Security comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 4, 2024

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
Sponsored
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (3rd), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (8th), ZTNA as a Service (11th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (9th)
Check Point Web Gateway
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
15th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Skyhigh Security
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
19th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (10th), ZTNA as a Service (16th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of iboss is 2.1%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Check Point Web Gateway is 1.2%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Skyhigh Security is 3.2%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

Featured Reviews

Matt Crockford - PeerSpot reviewer
It's easy to roll out, and their understanding of our business made it seamless
One aspect we value about iboss is its simplicity. Their customer service is brilliant, and they are super responsive and knowledgeable. It's easy to roll out, and their understanding of our business made it seamless. We were impressed by the solution's mental health function, which can detect if someone needs help. It scans what users are browsing and flags warning signs so we can check to see if they are okay. We've had to use it a couple of times. The user interface is highly intuitive. Our IT team picked it up with minimal training. It's arranged so that it's easy to find where things are. Another advantage is the single pane of glass console, which gives you visibility into what's happening. We're not fully there yet because we haven't implemented zero trust, but we're excited about the possibilities from the demos we've seen. We launched a POC of iboss' ChatGPT Risk Protection feature two weeks ago. AI is a great tool, but you need to be careful what you put into it. My biggest fear is employees inputting sensitive corporate information or customer PII data into one of these chatbots. I was impressed by our trial of the feature. It's exactly what we wanted. Now, when a user goes to ChatGPT, there's a banner warning them not to share information, and we can block conversations containing customer data like bank details and email addresses. I don't want to stop people from using it, but we need visibility. We've only tried it on a test group of 15 people. You can configure it to look for specific keywords or integrate it with your DLP policy if you have that configured
Nagendra Nekkala - PeerSpot reviewer
A user-friendly product that enables organizations to understand user behavior and create policies to block threats from internal and external users
The deployment is very easy. The deployment took one week. We need only one person to deploy and maintain the solution. It's easy to maintain it. The person maintaining the tool must perform data analysis of the blocked sites and the sites monitored by the management. The tool is deployed on the cloud.
Jathin Das - PeerSpot reviewer
Has good KB articles that make it simple for users to do the deployment themselves
One area for improvement I've seen in Skyhigh Security is that it lacks support for unsanctioned applications, where customers have their applications. Those applications do not come from Microsoft or other popular vendors. For example, Microsoft has support for Teams and it has support for OneDrive, but it doesn't have support for custom applications built by customers. Customers have internal teams building and publishing applications to the external world, but Skyhigh Security doesn't have support for those applications, and this is the main problem I've seen. The solution only supports a pool of applications that are from Microsoft and other major SaaS vendors. McAfee doesn't provide support for custom applications, compared to other vendors who provide it. For example, Bitglass and Netskope both have support for custom applications. Another area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is that its API support is a little weak. I also have not seen a strong integration between the solution and other McAfee products. SkyHigh Security is also not closely integrated with other McAfee CWPP products. If you have McAfee-connected security storage that you've built in the past, I have not seen integration between that storage and SkyHigh Security. Integration between the solution and other McAfee products needs improvement, though it may be because SkyHigh Security is an acquired product and is not a homegrown product of McAfee. McAfee may not have invested time with integration, but that is one good idea where McAfee could turn SkyHigh Security into a complete security product, and not just a CASB solution. Integration is really important and could help transform SkyHigh Security into a complete security solution. Performance could also be improved in SkyHigh Security because it is the main concern of customers. What's challenging is that the solution has a lot of CPU and requires a lot of memory which affects performance. What I'd like to see in the next release of SkyHigh Security is strong integration with third-party products. API integration is also another feature to focus on because everybody is now building APIs.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."
"We chose iboss for both zero trust and proxy (SWG) because their SWG was superior."
"Granular setup, which was able to set different levels of filters using the OUs in the AD."
"We were impressed by the solution's mental health function, which can detect if someone needs help. It scans what users are browsing and flags warning signs so we can check to see if they are okay. We've had to use it a couple of times."
"The iboss system is highly reliable. The false positive rates are small compared to some other systems we've experienced through other partner agencies who use competing solutions."
"It was a very easy product to install. It can be deployed very fast."
"Valuable features: Within the filter: Controls (Web categories, applications, and Allow/Block list) and Network (local Subnets). Within the reporter: Logs (Event Log) and Reports."
"It has an excellent threat prevention mechanism."
"The most valuable feature that I see in the application is the filtering of the URLs."
"I think this solution is very helpful to our customers because its cloud-based security can be deployed quickly and maintained easily."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the HTTPS inspection mechanism, application control, and URL filtering."
"Application control gives IT teams an opportunity to set suitable policies that can be used by all teams when coding."
"SmartConsole is intuitive."
"The product's best feature is observing how the traffic flows from one gateway to another. It's convenient for checking specific details, and you can manage everything centrally."
"It can also be used as a reverse proxy through the checkpoint."
"The risk rating of each cloud application has been very useful. Whenever we discover a new application is use, we are able to quickly determine if this application is safe to use and whether or not we should allow our end users to be able to access it."
"Data loss prevention and user behavior analysis are two valuable features."
"It's an easy-to-use product."
"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."
"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."
"Good anti-virus filtering, URL categorization, and reporting capabilities."
"Box API features with DLP capabilities."
"A stable solution with good support."
 

Cons

"To scale up, a new iboss Node Blade Chassis must be purchased."
"Their on-premise hardware's network interface is capped at one gigabit, which is sort of a problem. If you stand a filter up where all traffic flows through that, according to them, in order to go above a gigabit, you have to have multiple devices, which in today's IT seems a little bit silly. They could easily put in an SFP port into their device that could accommodate 10 gigs or at least offer a box."
"For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company ExxonMobil."
"Iboss is growing so fast that it is often hard for them to keep up with the challenges."
"The dashboards for local use could be better."
"Fold that in with the risk intelligence they're getting from all of the different subscriptions they are a part of. Now, these security companies subscribe to things like emerging threats, databases, etc. You can fold all this intelligence to decide what's happening on an endpoint. I would love to see them start moving into that space. That would compete directly with Microsoft. Maybe that's why they haven't. Having that ability native within the solution would be great. The other area in which I would love to see improvement is more detailed descriptions of why they block websites."
"File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature."
"Sometimes, obviously, there are bugs."
"We understand that if we want to see greater connections, greater services, and a greater capacity established for primary equipment, this solution needs to evolve to make an application installed directly on equipment."
"Most of the time, we are struggling when it comes to getting support."
"I would like to see improvement in the tool's availability."
"It is not user-friendly."
"The tool's stability needs improvement. The biggest problem is with updates."
"Check Point Web Gateway could add an end point access function."
"The support must be faster."
"The documentation must be improved."
"The feature that we would like to have is a hybrid environment, including both cloud and on-premises."
"The encrypted disk implementation could be improved. I currently use it from a dongle or USB key with two-factor authentication to access my computer."
"One thing that can be improved is their ability to integrate with other web proxies to discover unsanctioned IP apps."
"One area for improvement I've seen in Skyhigh Security is that it lacks support for unsanctioned applications, where customers have their applications. Those applications do not come from Microsoft or other popular vendors. For example, Microsoft has support for Teams and it has support for OneDrive, but it doesn't have support for custom applications built by customers. Customers have internal teams building and publishing applications to the external world, but Skyhigh Security doesn't have support for those applications, and this is the main problem I've seen. The solution only supports a pool of applications that are from Microsoft and other major SaaS vendors. McAfee doesn't provide support for custom applications, compared to other vendors who provide it. For example, Bitglass and Netskope both have support for custom applications. Another area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is that its API support is a little weak. I also have not seen a strong integration between the solution and other McAfee products."
"The pricing of the solution could be adjusted to make it more reasonable."
"The documentation could be improved."
"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 Skyhigh for Google Drive interface and policy engine is a bit confusing and limited when compared against other Google Drive CASB capabilities."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 expensive compared to one of its competitors."
"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"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."
"It is expensive. Licensing is on a yearly basis. You need to do the support subscription."
"This program is very, very expensive."
"The product is not cheap. It is expensive."
"The price is very high."
"There is a need to make yearly payments towards the licensing charges attached to the product. The product is neither too expensive nor too cheap, so it comes at a good price point for my company."
"The price is on the higher side, even when compared to Azure Firewall Premium."
"If one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the tool's price as a seven out of ten."
"Our customers pay a licensing fee annually or once in three or five years, per their requirements."
"The licensing fees are based on what environments you are monitoring."
"It's an expensive solution."
"They definitely charge a huge amount. All the security service providers charge a huge amount."
"The solution's hardware is expensive."
"The biggest thing to watch for is the difference in price per monitored user for the different API integrations."
"This is an expensive product, although it is made for larger enterprises and not for small organizations."
"Have a risk-based approach towards pricing."
"The solution is quite expensive. As we take add-ons continuously as per our customer's requirements, there are additional charges."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
852,780 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Government
22%
Computer Software Company
18%
Healthcare Company
6%
Security Firm
5%
Educational Organization
48%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about iboss?
Content filtering is the most useful feature of iboss.
What needs improvement with iboss?
I have a couple of thoughts for improvement, but usually when I address them with my rep, they put it into the featur...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
We use it primarily for simpler filtering because we're a K12 entity.
What do you like most about Check Point Web Gateway?
You don't have to wander around the tool since it is very simple. You can grab and get a hold of the tool very quickly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Check Point Web Gateway?
The pricing and discounts for Check Point Web Gateway are similar to Fortinet, making it cost-effective with fair pri...
What needs improvement with Check Point Web Gateway?
Visibility and a high-performance interface could be improved. Furthermore, deployment issues on Linux have been note...
What do you like most about McAfee Web Gateway?
Data loss prevention and user behavior analysis are two valuable features.
What needs improvement with McAfee Web Gateway?
The solution has room for improvement in its DDoS protection. Additionally, the documentation needs enhancement to pr...
What is your primary use case for McAfee Web Gateway?
The typical use case for our clients is cloud security.
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
No data available
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
 

Overview

 

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.
Morton Salt, Medical Advocacy and Outreach, BH Telecom, Lightbeam Health Solutions, X by Orange, Cadence, Nihondentsu, Datastream Connexion, Good Sam, Omnyway, FIASA, Pacific Life, Banco del Pacifico, Control Southern, Xero, Centrify, Tradair, Laterlite, Phoenix International, Unisinos, Wilkin Chapman, Connexus Energy, Mutua Universal, Smart & Final, Central New Mexico Community Colleg, Grupo Financiero Multiva
Western Union.Aetna.DirecTV.Adventist.Equinix.Perrigo.Goodyear.HP.Cargill.Sony.Bank of the West.Prudential.
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point Web Gateway vs. Skyhigh Security and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
852,780 professionals have used our research since 2012.