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

Netskope Next Gen Secure 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)
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (7th), ZTNA as a Service (7th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (8th)
Netskope Next Gen Secure We...
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
17th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Skyhigh Security
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
16th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (32nd), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (12th), ZTNA as a Service (17th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Secure Web Gateways (SWG) category, the mindshare of iboss is 2.5%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway is 2.4%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Skyhigh Security is 2.9%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
iboss2.5%
Skyhigh Security2.9%
Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway2.4%
Other92.2%
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

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.
Ernst (Eric) Goldman - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at Antares Joint Development
Designed to enforce architecture governance, ensuring traceable SaaS traffic
Netskope provides vigorous policy enforcement for SaaS platforms based on how we configure it, but its vulnerability management and threat intelligence capabilities could be stronger. We rely on external sources to become aware of vulnerabilities in major SaaS platforms, which highlights a gap. It would be beneficial if Netskope offered more robust vulnerability management or integrated threat intelligence through in-house development or partnerships. This would allow for a better policy setup without needing external threat intelligence to configure Netskope. Adding these features would enhance its overall value. I would suggest making some minor improvements to the interface to make it more intuitive, but those are primarily cosmetic. In terms of actual features, the only significant enhancement I could think of, besides better threat intelligence, would be for Netskope to assess the general SaaS landscape. This could include a scorecard showing the security posture of various SaaS platforms based on their track record with breaches and vulnerabilities. I understand this could create friction with SaaS providers if some receive poor scores, which might impact their relationship with Netskope. If Netskope were to harness machine learning more effectively and share those models transparently with enterprise customers, this could include making traffic data they already collect available for deeper analytics, allowing customers to gain better insights into employee traffic patterns. It could also assist with network operations by helping to fine-tune performance based on traffic flow, even though the primary purpose of analyzing that data is security-related. Providing more advanced analytics using existing data could significantly enhance its value to enterprises.
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

"iboss is among the few products providing inline filtering where no application is needed on the device. It operates on the network side and is not device-based. This feature was one of the main reasons why we stayed with them for so long."
"The security aspect of the solution, particularly the malware behind it, is excellent."
"iboss is among the few products providing inline filtering where no application is needed on the device."
"Because of iboss, I did not have to assign web filtering tasks to my techs on a daily basis."
"We chose iboss for both zero trust and proxy (SWG) because their SWG was superior."
"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."
"Our primary use case for this product is DLP,"
"iboss is easy to use despite its complexity. Multiple engineers manage it, but it's significantly more straightforward to administer than traditional VPNs and web proxies."
"We've found the solution to be quite stable."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its three modules, which are SWG, ZTNA, and CASB."
"Prevents data leakage and protects data."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is that everything is on the cloud. It has no on-premise hardware to deal with."
"It is for secure web trafficking, and it is doing what it needs to do. It allows customers to consolidate and eliminate multiple technologies onto Netskope and just kind of turn the dial and use more features, such as CASB, VPN. SWG is another feature. You can monitor and govern all the traffic."
"We can connect cloud apps and monitor them."
"The solution offers good security functionality."
"The solution's CASB, DLP, and threat protection features are very good."
"The other products that I have evaluated do not have the scalability options that McAfee has."
"Good anti-virus filtering, URL categorization, and reporting capabilities."
"I like the encrypted disk feature and the endpoint protection."
"The most valuable features of McAfee Web Gateway are anti-malware, reports, and powerful categorization of web pages."
"The return on investment has been positive."
"We have gained a deep insight into our Shadow IT usage as well as the different activities involved in Office 365."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"Data loss prevention and user behavior analysis are two valuable features."
 

Cons

"I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention."
"Sometimes, obviously, there are bugs."
"To scale up, a new iboss Node Blade Chassis must be purchased."
"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."
"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."
"Our biggest problem with their service was it did not recognize the device and filtering did not always work correctly."
"Sometimes the agent stops working in iboss, and we have to reinstall the agent."
"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 initial setup is a bit complex in that it takes a lot of time. In order to get the product to work as you need it to, there is a lot of configuration required."
"The solution needs to improve its on-premise detection technique."
"Cost competitiveness is its area of improvement. They will have to figure out how can they strategically price it because there are a few players in the game who have been doing it for a long time. They will have to figure out how to go to market on the pricing."
"Since they have the Netskope client, adding some functionality in the endpoint would be good."
"There is room for improvement in streamlining policies. So what happens is that when you apply a specific Netskope policy, you never know the kind of content it will automatically block, or it will allow."
"Netskope can only provide the high level related to threats."
"The solution lacks a good reporting feature."
"The accuracy 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."
"It would be nice to be able to get more advanced search functions to filter out data and quickly obtain the data that we need."
"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."
"The Skyhigh for Google Drive interface and policy engine is a bit confusing and limited when compared against other Google Drive CASB capabilities."
"The biggest challenge we have with McAfee is their cross-cloud support."
"The solution is hard to configure, our team does not have specific training requirements for McAfee making it difficult."
"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."
"The feature that we would like to have is a hybrid environment, including both cloud and on-premises."
 

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."
"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."
"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 probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"We pay a licensing fee of $10,000 on a yearly basis."
"The price is average. Because the license is user-based, you can increase it as per the user quantity."
"The product is cheap."
"The license model is based on the number of users. You have the possibility to have 10,000 users if you wish."
"The solution's overall cost is cheaper than regular web security solutions."
"It's an expensive solution."
"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."
"Pricing is not out of reach."
"They definitely charge a huge amount. All the security service providers charge a huge amount."
"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."
"The tool is not expensive."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance 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 Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise3
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...
Which lesser known firewall product has the best chance at unseating the market leaders?
Netscope, Zscaler if they continue route they are on now. FIrewalls needs great deal of automation on each end, datac...
Which lesser known firewall product has the best chance at unseating the market leaders?
Those firewalls that allow extend the perimeter. Nowadays, there is a issue with the static perimeter and all is goin...
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.
Arrow, Cloudrise, Sainsbury, Evalueserve, Stroock, Apria, Ather Energy, CSA, AVX Corporation Nuna, City of San Diego Case, Genomic Health Case Study, Oak Hill Advisors, MaRS Discovery District.
Western Union.Aetna.DirecTV.Adventist.Equinix.Perrigo.Goodyear.HP.Cargill.Sony.Bank of the West.Prudential.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway vs. Skyhigh Security and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.