Cisco Secure Web Appliance vs. UniFi Cloud Gateways

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cisco Secure Web Appliance
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Cisco Secure Web Appliance (formerly Cisco Web Security Appliance [WSA]), powered by Cisco Talos, protects by automatically blocking risky sites and testing unknown sites before allowing users to link to them, helping with compliance. It is available models S690, S390, and S190.N/A
UniFi Cloud Gateways
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
Ubiquiti Networks supports enterprise network security and wireless WAN via the WiFi integrated UniFi Cloud Gateways, including the Dream Router 7, and the UniFi Express 7.N/A
Pricing
Cisco Secure Web ApplianceUniFi Cloud Gateways
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Secure Web ApplianceUniFi Cloud Gateways
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Cisco Secure Web ApplianceUniFi Cloud Gateways
Considered Both Products
Cisco Secure Web Appliance
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
McAfee Web Gateway can be much more expensive, we tested it and it really is excellent in the usefulness it offers; however, the team did not adapt very well to how expensive the tool can be. On the other hand, Cisco Secure Web Appliance offers much more comfortable payment …
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
URL filtering is a feature that Cisco Secure Web Appliance does well. Cisco Secure Web Appliance latency is minimum to almost nothing.
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
At home I have a McAfee service that does similar tasks and helps manage the users of my internet. McAfee seems more user friendly and easier to set exceptions.
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
Cisco Web Security Appliance (WSA) is a potent tool. When it comes to handling emails and links from blacklisted IP, Cisco Web Security Appliance (WSA) does a better job. However, considering the price to performance ratio, Mimecast is way ahead of Cisco Web Security Appliance …
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
Considering we're with Cisco IronPort Web Security Appliances for the last 9 years, as I stated, we don't have too much experience with other producs. What I can say is that in the past, we evaluated Websense before it became Forcepoint and we also used MS ISA Server for …
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
We previously used BlueCoat ProxySG appliances. The system worked well overall, but the hardware, licensing, and support costs were just too high to continue using the product. The hardware costs, in particular, were unacceptable. It was relatively easy to convert our …
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
Websense has more resources devoted to categorizing the internet. The product is one of the best and most expensive. The Cisco WSA isn't as experienced, but is also significantly cheaper. Its an active product line getting investment and improvements. It is worth a look. …
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
Cisco IronPort was the most flexible and easy to deploy. The use of a central manager even simplifies the process even further. Maintenance is seemeless and upgrades go well without having to install constant hotfixes.
Chose Cisco Secure Web Appliance
We used several other products (evaluation and production) in the past and are testing some of them now. According to my experience I can say that Cisco IronPort Web Security Appliance has a lot of positive moments. It doesn't mean that other products worse or do not have such …
UniFi Cloud Gateways
Chose UniFi Cloud Gateways
We have transitioned third-party partners and our own internal offices away from consumer, prosumer, or SOHO grade systems such as high-end ASUS, TP-Link, and even Xiaomi routers. For the same money, we can have a more properly architected network that has better performance, …
Chose UniFi Cloud Gateways
Prior to this, we used Cisco Meraki wireless access points, which did not allow for centralized control, therefore several access points shared the same SSID. Because the client's movement from one device to another was not as seamless and reliable as it is with the current …
Chose UniFi Cloud Gateways
Wifi signal and management are superior. I have many Sonicwall TZ units with Wifi that are basically useless and added a Ubiquiti unit in place of the Sonicwall Wifi. Netgear nighthawk has a good wifi system but doesn't have the range Ubiquiti does. Netgear is great for the …
Chose UniFi Cloud Gateways
In the past, we used D-Link wi-fi devices, where centralized management was not possible, distributing the same SSID through several devices. Which cost configuration time and instability in the use between one point and another, because eventually, this transition between a …
Chose UniFi Cloud Gateways
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN and D-Link Wireless
Chose UniFi Cloud Gateways
I like both products. Management is similar. Ubiquiti is more cost effective for small businesses, you can do more for the same money.
Chose UniFi Cloud Gateways
When looking into Cisco options for WWAN, there were two issues we encountered. Up front as well as yearly maintenance costs for each device was considerably more expensive than the Ubiquiti options. And, although the Cisco options have more options to configure, it requires …
Chose UniFi Cloud Gateways
amer is literally rebranded Ubiquiti wireless points. They make you pay the annual fee. We cancelled our contract and were able to wipe the firmware and add them back to the Ubiquiti controller. Amer is a big waste of money.
Best Alternatives
Cisco Secure Web ApplianceUniFi Cloud Gateways
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Score 9.6 out of 10
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Score 9.6 out of 10
Enterprises
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Score 9.6 out of 10
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Score 9.6 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Cisco Secure Web ApplianceUniFi Cloud Gateways
Likelihood to Recommend
6.8
(0 ratings)
9.2
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
6.4
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Cisco Secure Web ApplianceUniFi Cloud Gateways
Likelihood to Recommend
Based on the platforms I have evaluated, I think the WSA is a great fit for any organization that needs a proxy server that provides control over what web sites are accessed or when they can be accessed. I think it is probably overkill if you simply need a proxy server for bandwidth savings or because you need to proxy general Internet access without extensive filtering needs.
Read full review
The Ubiquiti Wireless WAN solution can be used in both small and large corporate environments. However, as it has a rather high cost, its cost-benefit is greater in medium and large corporations, as small corporations may not take advantage of as many resources as the integration between Wi-Fi devices. In medium and large corporations, resources like this represent a very great facility in network management and in the availability of the connection in a transparent way at different points of the company, together with the security of isolated networks logically being made available by the same Wi-Fi device.
Read full review
Pros
  • It does a great job of filtering emails based on IP reputation. This feature works particularly very well. Cisco has a vast database of IP reputation scores and therefore offers very few false positives and negatives.
  • It checks each email thoroughly without any compromise of privacy. Any malicious link present in the body of the email makes its way to the quarantine. The IP reputation scores also help in this case.
Read full review
  • Automatically load balances based on band. Makes it simple to spread out users.
  • Updates can be set to automatic or manual. Automatic uses rolling updates, happens every time we update the controller.
  • Continually add new features and improvements with their FREE software upgrades
Read full review
Cons
  • The categories provided are not as granular as some competitors, like Websense.
  • Cisco does not have as many resources devoted to categorizing websites as some competitors, like Websense.
  • New features require administrators to pay attention to updates. New features are disabled by default.
Read full review
  • Supply can be a problem, especially for new products. We have had to sometimes wait for months for supply to come in.
  • No phone support. Only email/chat. can be frustrating sometimes just texting someone, but have not had to contact them very often.
Read full review
Usability
Because it's one of those products you almost don't realize it exists from the end user. From the administrator perspective, you can do everything on its web interface and it's very intuitive to manage, once you know the concepts behind identities, acls, etc. Also, once you build the control structure, I mean, you link 'local' groups with your own Active Directory groups, as we did here, you don't need to be managing those things on the appliance itself.
Read full review
The combination of performance, range, low-power use, and manageability made it ideal for us.
Read full review
Support Rating
Our experience with Cisco's support was terrible. Other than the fact that they don't respond to service-related emails with urgency, they also keep on changing the policies that affected us. Recently, they came up with a new look for the same software, which was insanely slow. Renewal of keys for the old interface took months. Overall, the support was not very friendly from the users' point of view.
Read full review
We have not needed to contact support, except to replace one device that was damaged in shipping. The company immediately issued an RMA without delay, and we had our replacement product within a week
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Considering we're with Cisco IronPort Web Security Appliances for the last 9 years, as I stated, we don't have too much experience with other producs. What I can say is that in the past, we evaluated Websense before it became Forcepoint and we also used MS ISA Server for webfilter. As you may imagine, IronPort is a very very superior product.
Read full review
Prior to this, we used Cisco Meraki wireless access points, which did not allow for centralized control, therefore several access points shared the same SSID. Because the client's movement from one device to another was not as seamless and reliable as it is with the current Ubiquiti solution, this shift cost both time and stability during configuration.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Having a much safer work system has given us the guarantee and security of always staying out of danger.
  • The prevention system is important for us and always keeping our devices, web and emails free of any malicious agent has allowed us an excellent workflow, without distractions or inconvenience in the development of projects.
  • Thanks to the fact that we have kept our work system safe, we have saved ourselves a lot of inconvenience, time spent, avoiding equipment damage, payments to solve problems, among many other problems that thanks to Cisco Secure Web Appliance we have been able to solve.
Read full review
  • Huge cost savings. Buy it once and you are done, no annual renewals.
  • Extremely reliable and scalable. We went from 0 to 900 Chromebooks in 2 years.
  • Very little maintenance, set it and forget it. Allows us to focus on other tasks.
Read full review
ScreenShots