Menlo Secure vs Skyhigh Security comparison

Menlo Security and Skyhigh Security are both solutions in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category. Menlo Security is ranked #31, while Skyhigh Security is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0. Menlo Security holds a 1.3% mindshare in WSG, compared to Skyhigh Security’s 3.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Menlo Security users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 91% of Skyhigh Security users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 4, 2024

Skyhigh Security and Menlo Secure are contenders in the cybersecurity market. Menlo Secure is superior in features, while Skyhigh Security stands out for customer support and lower setup costs.

Features: Skyhigh Security provides robust cloud security, focusing on data loss prevention and threat intelligence. It effectively uses shadow IT capabilities for enhanced visibility and risk management. The solution supports comprehensive threat analysis and integrates seamlessly with various services. Menlo Secure distinguishes itself with advanced isolation technology for internet and email security, ensuring unmatched protection against web-based threats. It offers seamless web browsing with effective phishing site isolation and detailed user activity reports through a single console.

Room for Improvement: Skyhigh Security could enhance real-time threat intelligence and the flexibility of web proxy configurations for seamless integration across platforms. Improved reporting tools and user experience can fortify user analytics. Menlo Secure could optimize the logging process for easier tracking of user activities and current users. An expanded feature set for logging and authentication management would be valuable, along with covering a broader range of security threats without bypassing isolation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Skyhigh Security is known for its streamlined deployment process and excellent customer support, offering smooth onboarding and ongoing assistance. Menlo Secure offers a straightforward deployment model but lacks in delivering the same level of customer service satisfaction, focusing primarily on simplicity and efficiency in its integration.

Pricing and ROI: Skyhigh Security offers competitive pricing, which provides a favorable ROI due to efficient security offerings and cost-effective solutions. Although Menlo Secure has a higher setup cost, its innovative features justify the investment over time, especially for organizations prioritizing advanced online protection.

To learn more, read our detailed Menlo Secure vs. Skyhigh Security Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Menlo Secure vs. Skyhigh Security

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 851,604 peers since 2012

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

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 Menlo Secure is 1.3%, up from 1.0% 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

Head of Cybersecurity at SES Water

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

Read full review

Olivier DALOY

Group Information Systems Security Director - CISO at Faurecia

Secures users wherever they are and enable us to inspect SSL traffic, but we encountered too many issues

The solution should have no impact but it does have a bit of impact on end-users. For example, we encountered some issues in the downloads that took longer than they did without using Menlo. That is clearly not transparent for users. We expected not to have any latency when downloading anything from the internet with Menlo compared to without Menlo. We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution. In other words, we hope to get the same level of protection, while reducing the number of visible bugs, issues, latencies, impacts on performance, et cetera, that we have today with Menlo. We already solved most of them, but we still have too many such instances of issues with Menlo, even though it is protecting us for sure. The weak point of the solution is that it has consumed far too much of my team's time, taking them away from operations and projects and design. It took far too much time to implement it and get rid of all of the live issues that we encountered when our users started using the solution. The good point is that I'm sure it is protecting us and it's probably protecting us more than any other solution, which is something I appreciate a lot as a CISO. But on the other hand, the number of issues reported by the users, and the amount of time that has been necessary for either my team or the infrastructure team to spend diagnosing, troubleshooting, and fixing the issues that we had with the solution was too much. And that doesn't include the need to still use our previous solution, Blue Coat, that we have kept active so that whatever is not compatible or doesn't work with Menlo, can be handled by that other solution. It is far too demanding in terms of effort and workload and even cost, at the end of the day. That is why we decided to transition to another solution. If we had known in the beginning that we would not be able to get rid of Blue Coat, we probably would not have chosen Menlo because we were planning to replace Blue Coat with something that was at least able to do the same and more. We discovered that it was able to do more but it was not able to replace it, which is an issue. It is not only a matter of cost but is also a matter of not being able to reduce the number of partners that you have to deal with. In addition, they could enhance the ability to troubleshoot. Whenever a connection going through Menlo fails for any reason, being able to troubleshoot what the configuration of Menlo should be to allow it through would help, as would knowing what level of additional risk we would be taking with that configuration.

Read full review

Yovanny Amariles

Information Security Leader at Alcaldía de Medellín

Provides good security, availability, and policy granularity

The solution's initial setup is easy. Since our company has a very clear internet surfing policy, it is easy to implement it on the device without any problem. The solution's deployment takes one month. One engineer from my team and one engineer from the vendor side helped with the deployment process.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution has massively improved our security posture, giving us full visibility into what our staff does online."

"Our primary use case for this product is DLP,"

"iboss is among the few products providing inline filtering where no application is needed on the device."

"Its initial setup was straightforward."

"Because of iboss, I did not have to assign web filtering tasks to my techs on a daily basis."

"It was a very easy product to install. It can be deployed very fast."

"I would definitely recommend iboss for web filtering purposes to other organizations or individuals."

"First of all, the security policies are essential. I do not have to rely solely on Active Directory for our users."

More iboss pros

"The fact that it is a cloud proxy solution is another feature we like. For example, if you acquire a new company, you can use it to protect that new company without the need to install anything physically on their networks."

"Accessing the internet with a proxy from anywhere is the most valuable feature. It ensures that users are only able to browse legitimate websites. If they happen to go to a legitimate website with a malicious payload, the isolation feature will take care of that."

"It has reduced security events to follow up on. While it is not 100%, there has been probably a 90% or more reduction. We were getting hit left, right, and center constantly from people browsing the Internet and hitting bad websites. It was not just bad websites that were stood up to be malicious, but good sites that were compromised."

"For us, the primary goal is protection on the web, and that's extremely important. We're not using any of the other services at this time. The web part is key to the success of the organization. It gives us the ability to protect. It can isolate. It opens the session in an isolated format so that the code isn't running locally. It is running over in the Menlo environment, not in ours. It is not running on the local computer, whereas if you were to go to a normal website, it would run Java or something else on the local machine and potentially execute the malicious code locally. So, it does give us that level of protection."

"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."

"It gives us visibility into how the data is being used within our cloud environment."

"I like the encrypted disk feature and the endpoint protection."

"All the information available on each service, including its risk assessment."

"Box API features with DLP capabilities."

"User analytics."

"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."

"Improves creation of security alerts on web proxy logs by having a separate system interpret said logs."

More Skyhigh Security pros

Cons

"Our biggest problem with their service was it did not recognize the device and filtering did not always work correctly."

"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."

"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."

"The reporting feature needs improvement."

"I am currently doing a PoC of the zero trust aspect of it. Compared to other similar solutions, it is hard to get around each feature. It takes a while to get used to it."

"I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention."

"The area I would like to see improvement in is the ability with in the reporter to navigate directly to the content the user is traversing. It is kind of there, but it's not perfect. Quite frequently, I receive links that lead me to pages with error messages."

"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."

More iboss cons

"We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution."

"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. However, that is a big ask because a lot of that depends on how websites are constructed. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for. It is really not that big an issue for us to make the exceptions. We feel like we are doing that without a huge impact on our security posture, but we do have to make some exceptions for complex sites, e.g., mostly SaaS-type sites and applications."

"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists. I have numerous entries, but are they all still needed? A report that would show me my list of who is allowed and whether we're actually using it would be useful because I can then go clean up my list. It would be easier to manage. We would eliminate the vulnerability of unused services."

"The user monitoring could still be improved."

"The cloud needs improvement with respect to DLP."

"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."

"You can integrate Skyhigh's rules with Active Directory groups. For example, you can allow access to a specific website for a defined set of users. I can do that, but the rules are not straightforward. It can look up the group in Active Directory. However, it doesn't always find the proper group name. The rule configuration should be simpler and more granular. The admin should be able to map 80 groups in the rules quickly."

"Though the Skyhigh Dashboard is processing large amounts of data, the speed of the Dashboard could be improved."

"Skyhigh Security is complex to manage. While it should ideally be more user-friendly, customers often find themselves having to manage it post-deployment."

"McAfee Web Gateway could improve the reporting. We have the reporting on a separate server and sometimes the database becomes full. These aspects could improve."

"De-tokenization."

"The secure gateway could be improved."

More Skyhigh Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"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."

"We save a ton of money and time. Previously, the numerous hits that we were receiving from our security tools, prior to implementing them, had to all be chased down, dispositioned, and endpoints had to be reimaged. It was just a ton of effort to do all that. That is where the savings from time and money come in."

"It is appropriately priced for what they're doing for us. Considering the protection provided, I feel their pricing is spot-on."

"The solution is expensive. It's more expensive than the solution I previously used. Compared with the other cloud-based solutions, it's very competitive."

"Pricing for Skyhigh Security is fine."

"This is an expensive product, but you have to compare that with other solutions that are on the market."

"The biggest thing to watch for is the difference in price per monitored user for the different API integrations."

"Skyhigh provided a FedRAMP solution, tokenization, a better shadow IT capability, and lower cost."

"The solution's hardware is expensive."

"Pricing for Skyhigh Security is okay, though there's always a scope for price improvements. Its pricing is okay compared to other products because other products have very expensive licensing costs. Along with the licensing, support is also provided for Skyhigh Security, so pricing is reasonable, but if there's proactive or better support, that will justify the pricing. I haven't interacted with the Skyhigh Security technical support team yet, so I'd give pricing a four out of five rating for now."

"They definitely charge a huge amount. All the security service providers charge a huge amount."

"It's an expensive solution."

More Skyhigh Security pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Healthcare Company

Educational Organization

48%

Financial Services Firm

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about iboss?

Content filtering is the most useful feature of iboss.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for iboss?

We use it primarily for simpler filtering because we're a K12 entity.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about McAfee Web Gateway?

Data loss prevention and user behavior analysis are two valuable features.

See all answers

What needs improvement with McAfee Web Gateway?

The solution has room for improvement in its DDoS protection. Additionally, the documentation needs enhancement to pr...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for McAfee Web Gateway?

The typical use case for our clients is cloud security.

See all answers

Comparisons

Zscaler Internet Access vs iboss

Compared 19% of the time

Netskope vs iboss

Compared 15% of the time

Cisco Umbrella vs iboss

Compared 15% of the time

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs iboss

Compared 10% of the time

Cloudflare One vs iboss

Compared 9% of the time

More iboss Competitors

Cisco Umbrella vs Menlo Secure

Compared 22% of the time

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs Menlo Secure

Compared 18% of the time

Prisma Access Browser vs Menlo Secure

Compared 15% of the time

Symantec Endpoint Security vs Menlo Secure

Compared 12% of the time

Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway vs Menlo Secure

Compared 12% of the time

More Menlo Secure Competitors

Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 16% of the time

Netskope vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 13% of the time

Zscaler Internet Access vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 11% of the time

Cisco Umbrella vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 5% of the time

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs Skyhigh Security

Compared 4% of the time

More Skyhigh Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

iboss

May 2025

Download iboss product report

Buyer's Guide

Menlo Secure

May 2025

Download Menlo Secure product report

Buyer's Guide

Skyhigh Security

April 2025

Download Skyhigh Security product report

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform

Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security

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

iboss

Demo not available

Menlo Security

Skyhigh Security

Overview

iboss offers a comprehensive security platform designed for diverse use cases such as web filtering, data loss protection, corporate proxy services, and URL filtering.

iboss integrates advanced features to address dynamic security needs, leveraging its strength in SASE, ZTNA, AI initiatives, and cloud integration, while ensuring seamless operations for remote work. It excels in historical forensics, malware protection, and flexible cloud deployments. Users benefit from comprehensive traffic scanning, robust malware detection, and PaaS capabilities that reduce hardware management. An intuitive admin console ensures efficient management with content filtering and low false positives. SSL decryption enhances security, while DLP protects data in AI conversations. Deployment is rapid and scalable, allowing effortless integration with emerging technologies.

What features does iboss offer?

Granular Web Filtering: Provides precise control over web content access.
Traffic Scanning: Monitors data through multiple ports for security breaches.
Malware Detection: Ensures superior protection against malware threats.
PaaS Capabilities: Eliminates need for hardware management.
SSL Decryption: Enhances data protection by decrypting secure connections.
DLP Capabilities: Safeguards data during AI interactions.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Scalability: Adapts quickly to growing demands and emerging tech integration.
Rapid Deployment: Reduces time to implement security measures.
User-Friendly Admin Console: Facilitates efficient operations management.
Low False Positives: Increases accuracy of threat detection systems.

iboss finds significant application in sectors such as education, where web filtering for K-12 is crucial, and in corporate environments requiring robust proxy services and URL filtering for network security. Its adaptability is essential in scenarios demanding flexible, decentralized security frameworks, particularly for remote work setups.

iboss

Menlo Security Secure Application Access

Menlo Security Secure Application Access makes zero trust access easy, giving users secure connectivity to private applications, including web and legacy applications. At the core of Secure Application Access is the Menlo Secure Cloud Browser, which fetches, secures and delivers the content for users.

In addition to providing simple-to-deploy, clientless ZTA, Secure Application Access and the Menlo Secure Cloud Browser protect applications from attacks such as session hijacking, cookie manipulation, and other tactics that employ protocol manipulation.

Secure Application Access protects applications from Internet threats and provides granular controls for added protection of the application and associated data. These security controls include Read-only/Read-write, Upload/download, Copy/paste, AV scanning, Sandboxing, and Data Loss Prevention.

Last Mile Data Protection

Menlo Last-Mile Data Protection identifies and prevents sensitive data from leaving your company by meticulously inspecting all file uploads and user input across browsing sessions. Leveraging the Secure Cloud Browser, users are protected from the internet and you can protect your organization from data loss with comprehensive traffic monitoring and controls. This approach addresses the growing concerns surrounding data leakage in the age of AI tools like ChatGPT.

By identifying sensitive data through file types, regular expressions, or predefined libraries, Menlo Last-Mile Data Protection empowers security teams to regulate data input into AI platforms and prevent unauthorized uploads. This capability provides crucial protection for intellectual property, PII, and other confidential information.

The solution leverages the Menlo Cloud Security Platform's visibility and control over traffic to reliably detect and prevent data leaks originating from both browser submission forms and non-browser traffic. With the ability to inspect encrypted web traffic, Menlo Last-Mile Data Protection enforces DLP policies consistently across all users and devices, ensuring comprehensive data protection.

Menlo Security

Skyhigh Security protects organizations with cloud-based Zero Trust security solutions that are both data-aware and simple to use. Skyhigh’s Security Service Edge portfolio goes beyond data access and focuses on data use, allowing organizations to collaborate from any device and from anywhere without sacrificing security, while providing the visibility and control required to monitor and mitigate security risks.

The Skyhigh Security Service Edge portfolio includes Skyhigh Secure Web Gateway, Skyhigh Cloud Access Security Broker, Skyhigh Private Access, and Skyhigh Cloud Native Application Protection Platform. All solutions form a fully converged, consolidated platform, and are managed from the same single console.

Skyhigh Cloud Access Security Broker protects data and stops threats in the cloud across SaaS, and PaaS, and IaaS environments from a single, cloud-native enforcement point. It enables organizations to accelerate their business by giving them visibility and control over their data in the cloud and protection from threats with a frictionless deployment model.
Skyhigh Secure Web Gateway connects and secures your workforce from malicious websites and cloud apps from anywhere, any application, and any device. It protects users from threats and data loss with integrated Remote Browser Isolation, Cloud Access Security Broker and Data Loss Prevention capabilities while providing the ability to access the web and cloud.
Skyhigh Private Access is the data centric Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) solution that provides integrated Data Loss Prevention scanning and seamless Remote Browser Isolation integration for robust data protection, using Zero Trust principles. Apply a unified policy across web, SaaS, and private apps.
Skyhigh Cloud Native Application Protection Platform is the industry’s first platform to extend Cloud Access Security Broker, bringing application and data context to converge Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with IaaS Data Loss Prevention for IaaS public clouds. Skyhigh CNAPP provides consistent data protection, threat prevention, governance, and compliance throughout the cloud-native application development lifecycle.

Skyhigh Security Benefits

Modern Data Protection. Extensible data protection policies to determine what can be accessed, shared, and how it can be used.
Zero Trust for the Cloud. Extend zero trust to the cloud ensuring that your sensitive data is accessed, shared, and stored appropriately.
Actionable Insights. Unified view of data and risk, regardless of where and how the policy is enforced.

Skyhigh Security Features

99.999% Uptime. Connects users seamlessly and without disruption through Hyperscale Service Edge with cloud-native web security that operates with ultra-low latency and 99.999% uptime.
Remote Browser Isolation. Prevents threats of a web page from reaching endpoints with intelligent, multi-layer remote browser isolation technology that provides secure web browsing through robust machine learning analysis on real-time telemetry.
Cloud Registry. The world’s largest and most accurate registry of cloud services based on a customizable 261-point risk assessment to support risk-aware cloud governance.

Skyhigh Security

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.

Information Not Available

Western Union.Aetna.DirecTV.Adventist.Equinix.Perrigo.Goodyear.HP.Cargill.Sony.Bank of the West.Prudential.

Buyer's Guide

Menlo Secure vs. Skyhigh Security

April 2025

Free Report: Menlo Secure vs. Skyhigh Security

Find out what your peers are saying about Menlo Secure vs. Skyhigh Security and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Menlo Secure vs. Skyhigh Security report.

See our list of best Secure Web Gateways (SWG) vendors.

We monitor all Secure Web Gateways (SWG) 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.