DNSFilter vs. SafeDNS

it is well-suited for the following scenarios:Organizations that need to comply with regulatory requirements related to internet usage, such as data privacy and security laws, and that need to monitor and control employee internet activity.Organizations that are concerned about online threats and need to protect their networks and endpoints from malware, phishing, and other types of malicious content.Organizations that need to improve productivity by reducing distractions for employees, and/or need to restrict access to specific websites during work hours.Organizations that need to protect sensitive data such as customer information, financial transactions and other sensitive data, by monitoring and controlling the internet activity on the back-end systems.However, SafeDNS may not be as appropriate for the following scenarios:Organizations that have very limited IT resources and lack the skills and knowledge required to set up and manage SafeDNS Organizations that have specific needs and requirements that are not met by the features and capabilities of SafeDNS, for example organizations that require advanced threat detection and response capabilities.Organizations that may have limited budget, SafeDNS does require a subscription cost, that might not be feasible for smaller businesses with limited resources.Organizations that are using legacy systems that are not compatible with SafeDNS, that may not be able to integrate it to their infrastructure.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

• Improved scalability: As an organization's needs grow and evolve, the software should be able to scale up and handle an increasing number of users and devices.
• More granular controls: The ability to set more detailed and specific policies, such as the ability to block certain types of content for specific groups of users, would give organizations more flexibility and control over their internet usage.
• Advanced threat protection: Increasing the software's ability to detect and protect against advanced threats such as zero-day exploits and APTs would provide a more comprehensive security solution.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

• Filtering accuracy: While SafeDNS provides filtering of websites, it's possible that it could be improved to more accurately identify and block unwanted content. This could be achieved by implementing more advanced algorithms or incorporating more data sources.
• Reporting and analytics: Some users may find that the reporting and analytics capabilities of SafeDNS are lacking and could be improved, for example by providing more detailed information about internet usage, or more sophisticated filtering and reporting tools.
• Compatibility: Some organizations may have legacy systems that are not fully compatible with SafeDNS. Improving compatibility could make it easier for these organizations to integrate SafeDNS into their existing infrastructure.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

When compared to Kerio Control we found Central Management of filtering to be much easier, it also allowed us to apply filtering to remote devices like laptops and had better logging. We found DNSFilter to be much easier to deploy then Webroot DNS Protection because Webroot required the Anti Virus to be installed before deployment was even possible, and reporting features were very lacking.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

No comparison. I never could get the Cisco product to function as it should in the trial and their support was poor.