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

Cisco Secure Access vs Skyhigh Security comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 6, 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)
5th
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
7th
Ranking in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
8th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), ZTNA as a Service (7th)
Cisco Secure Access
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
6th
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
3rd
Ranking in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Firewalls (11th), ZTNA (6th), Domain Name System (DNS) Security (2nd)
Skyhigh Security
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
16th
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
12th
Ranking in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
15th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (32nd), ZTNA as a Service (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) category, the mindshare of iboss is 2.3%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco Secure Access is 3.6%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Skyhigh Security is 2.1%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Secure Access3.6%
iboss2.3%
Skyhigh Security2.1%
Other92.0%
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2701851 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Kartik Amin - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Operations Engineer at Redex IT Limited
Secure access has unified zero trust and web protection while AI assistance automates tasks
From a feature perspective, I have not experienced any issues, drawbacks, or shortcomings. However, the cost of Cisco's products and licensing is high. My clients usually prefer cheaper options if possible. Mid-size or smaller businesses typically cannot afford Cisco Secure Access. Additionally, there is a steep learning curve, as it is very intensive. Someone with significant knowledge can work on it, but a new professional would have to spend considerable time to get accustomed to it. It is hard to find engineers who can work on it. Overall, we get what we pay for, as it is a pretty good feature and service. The pricing of Cisco's products and licensing is higher than competitors. If they could be more reasonable, that would help. The support offered for two years also has higher costs. Overall, the client's IT budget gets affected. It was challenging to learn because, as mentioned, it has a significant learning curve and requires considerable training to become proficient.
KS
Technical Associate Network Security at Valuepoint Systems
Proxy integration has strengthened email security and centralized monitoring for all branches
We have nearly 900 plus branches here, where we have rerouted our traffic through proxy like Trellix Skyhigh Security. We operate in a major financial sector in India, and that is why we use Skyhigh Security to reroute all our traffic via proxy for our security. Only then will it reach our gateway. We monitor all the URLs and the plant IPs in our proxy. We are tracing those IPs to see whether they have a valid code or not. We also check with Trellix Sandbox to determine whether the URL is malicious or not. Additionally, we have included our Cisco Umbrella with our proxy, so the DNS resolution happens on our Umbrella side. We continuously monitor the traffic on our proxy side. The threat protection feature is a major useful thing because for our 900 branches we monitor with this proxy only. If any issue or any URL does not reach, it is quite helpful to check whether the issue is in the proxy side or in the actual end-user side. It is quite easy to monitor. We do not get all those things from the firewall end, and it is quite easy to gather that information from the proxy, which is a major benefit here. It also majorly helps to hide our actual IPs, as we have directed all the IPs from the proxy, making it very helpful to hide our internal servers.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I would definitely recommend iboss for web filtering purposes to other organizations or individuals."
"The console is cloud-based, which is something I really appreciate."
"I would rate the technical support of iboss a solid 10 without a shadow of a doubt."
"Its initial setup was straightforward."
"We chose iboss for both zero trust and proxy (SWG) because their SWG was superior."
"The security aspect of the solution, particularly the malware behind it, is excellent. That's something that really helped us out. It's not just a simple proxy that just blocks the insights of potential threats that come on behind it. They do malware detection and that helps us a lot."
"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."
"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."
"Since I started using Cisco Secure Access, I have noticed positive impacts on my organization."
"It works well. It hasn't broken. While I don't know enough about all the features yet, it hasn't caused us any problems."
"From my perspective, it was the right decision to move to that platform, as I expect the product to be ideal for having secure access to your network system, especially as we will see a transition from mostly on-premise to mostly cloud."
"What I appreciate about Cisco is that everything they do is precise and works well without any issues."
"It is very flexible, a very competitive solution, very helpful, and very secure; it includes everything a business needs, and the pricing is also available."
"It's pretty streamlined. Everything you need to find is in the GUI interface, and if you have any trouble, it's easy to navigate and get around."
"The main feature of interest to me and the customers is DNS security and Integrated Secure Web Control (ISWC)."
"Cisco Secure Access provides application-level access, removes the dependency of VPN, and user authentications are continuously based on identity, device, and risk, which is an add-on there."
"The solution is very easy to use, easy to navigate, very stable, scalable, quite flexible, and overall the performance is good."
"We are able to see what cloud services are being used with more clarity than with our proxies."
"Shadow IT reporting capabilities."
"Although it is costly, I would recommend this solution to anyone."
"It has given us visibility into our employees activities and access to cloud apps."
"What's most valuable in Skyhigh Security is its level of security."
"Skyhigh offers solutions like WLP and CASB. These tools provide instructions and guidelines for enhancing data security. Additionally, they offer additional software solutions for further protection."
"The ability to identify shadow IT within our environment through proxy log analysis based on risk assessments provided by Skyhigh Registry have been invaluable in helping us reduce our overall data risk."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"Sometimes, obviously, there are bugs."
"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."
"One thing I would like to see differently with their Zero Trust platform is that some of the AI aspects related to high-risk activities have more false positives."
"The reporting feature needs improvement. It doesn't give you the expected results. It is quite difficult to get the specific reports needed, and it is not as intuitive as the rest of the platform."
"I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention."
"Sometimes the agent stops working in iboss, and we have to reinstall the agent."
"The main issue with pricing is that it is higher compared to other competitors, making it challenging to work with customers unless they specifically request Cisco."
"I would describe my experience deploying Cisco Secure Access as working well, though we are hitting bugs."
"In general, I think Cisco Secure Access can be improved. I have worked a lot with Cisco Secure Connect, which is very intuitive and easy. With Cisco Secure Access, things are very complicated."
"Cisco Secure Access may not seamlessly integrate into such settings, although it performs well in a Cisco-based environment."
"In my opinion, Cisco Secure Access could be improved by potentially incorporating features that other brands have been using. I see benefits from features offered by competitors, which could enhance the Cisco experience if adapted thoughtfully."
"Cisco Secure Access has impacted our help desk ticket volume and end-user experience because sometimes users encounter issues. Since we have many features activated, users sometimes cannot connect or attempt to connect multiple times, which generates service desk tickets."
"I have had experience with customer service and technical support already. It was not very good because we always have to escalate to engineering with our problems, so the TAC cannot help us."
"In general, what can be improved about this solution is to not change the name of everything every year, as Cisco marketing are experts at making changes to everything, and I don't understand what this is; that was the AnyConnect VPN, and now it's Cisco Secure Access, and what's tomorrow?"
"There are no training videos available for the product."
"Its capabilities are still rather limited compared to other solutions."
"De-tokenization."
"SkyHigh has the ability to place users or groups on a ‘Watchlist’; which allows you to see certain views with these Watchlists users/groups in them, but if I wanted to generate a report on only the Watchlists, it is not possible."
"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."
"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 solution has room for improvement in its DDoS protection."
"It is an expensive solution."
 

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 probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
"It is expensive compared to one of its competitors."
"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."
"For what you get, it's a fair price in comparison to other products."
"It is confusing. When you look at the prices, you have different licensing and years of licensing that you have to purchase. Additionally, it's unclear what service you get from those licenses regarding end-user support. We have a representative who has to walk me through it every time."
"The pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco Secure Access have been very competitive compared to other platforms. I believe that if Cisco continues to improve costs or offers something similar to a Cisco credit, it would attract more customers."
"The solution's hardware is expensive."
"It's an expensive solution."
"Commercially, I find Skyhigh Security a little costlier, compared to other products such as SentinelOne or Cybereason which are really novelty products. I'm not comparing Skyhigh Security with Trend Micro, but with other products, in particular the new, next-generation products. The price for Skyhigh Security is high in terms of value and ROI. I would rate the product price combined with product efficacy a six out of ten."
"Skyhigh provided a FedRAMP solution, tokenization, a better shadow IT capability, and lower cost."
"Have a risk-based approach towards pricing."
"The tool is not expensive."
"The solution is quite expensive. As we take add-ons continuously as per our customer's requirements, there are additional charges."
"This is an expensive product, although it is made for larger enterprises and not for small organizations."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) solutions are best for your needs.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Construction Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise27
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise38
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?
For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company Exxon...
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...
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Secure Access?
My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Cisco Secure Access is that it is part of our security ...
What is your primary use case for Cisco Secure Access?
Cisco Secure Access has many features, and I want to clarify whether the discussion pertains to Cisco ISE or the Cisc...
What advice do you have for others considering Cisco Secure Access?
Cisco Secure Access always requires monitoring for updates and signatures, similar to a health check, but not intensi...
What needs improvement with McAfee Web Gateway?
When compared to other technologies, Skyhigh Security is quite simple, but if there is any improvement in the GUI, it...
What is your primary use case for McAfee Web Gateway?
I am currently working on Cisco Email Security Gateway, ESA, and I am also exploring Trellix Skyhigh proxy. I have be...
What advice do you have for others considering McAfee Web Gateway?
For IAM, we are using other tools, as we are a financial institution, so we do not go with a single vendor platform. ...
 

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
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.
1. IBM 2. Microsoft 3. Amazon 4. Google 5. Apple 6. Cisco Systems 7. Oracle 8. Intel 9. HP Inc. 10. Dell Technologies 11. Verizon Communications 12. AT&T 13. Comcast 14. T-Mobile 15. Sprint 16. Vodafone 17. Orange 18. BT Group 19. Deutsche Telekom 20. Telefonica 21. Nokia 22. Ericsson 23. Samsung Electronics 24. Sony 25. Panasonic 26. LG Electronics 27. Siemens 28. General Electric 29. Ford Motor Company 30. General Motors 31. Toyota Motor Corporation 32. Volkswagen Group
Western Union.Aetna.DirecTV.Adventist.Equinix.Perrigo.Goodyear.HP.Cargill.Sony.Bank of the West.Prudential.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Access vs. Skyhigh Security and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.