Forcepoint Bitglass: A Comprehensive Comparison of Cloud Security Leaders

The landscape of cloud security has evolved dramatically over the past decade, with Forcepoint and Bitglass emerging as two prominent players in this competitive space. While both companies aim to secure enterprise data in cloud environments, they approach this challenge with distinct philosophies, architectures, and feature sets. This in-depth analysis examines the Forcepoint Bitglass dynamic, exploring their respective strengths, weaknesses, and ideal use cases to help organizations make informed decisions about their cloud security investments.

Forcepoint, born from the merger of Raytheon’s cybersecurity assets, brings a heritage of government-grade security to the commercial market. Their approach centers on the concept of Human-Centric Security, which focuses on understanding user behavior to better protect data. The Forcepoint Security Platform integrates multiple security capabilities including Data Loss Prevention (DLP), Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB), and Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA). This unified platform aims to provide consistent security policies across cloud, hybrid, and on-premises environments, reducing complexity for security teams.

Bitglass, now part of the Proofpoint security family, pioneered the first CASB solution to combine zero-day data protection, granular visibility, and real-time access control in a single platform. Their core technology revolves around a multitenant, cloud-native architecture that requires no on-premises hardware or software. The Bitglass approach emphasizes ease of deployment and management, with particular strengths in securing Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications, mobile devices, and unmanaged networks.

When comparing the architectural approaches of Forcepoint and Bitglass, several key differences emerge:

• Forcepoint typically employs a hybrid architecture that can combine on-premises components with cloud services, while Bitglass operates exclusively as a cloud-native service
• Forcepoint’s platform integrates multiple security functions through a common management console, whereas Bitglass focuses specifically on CASB, Secure Web Gateway (SWG), and Zero Trust capabilities
• Bitglass utilizes a reverse proxy architecture that routes traffic through their security cloud, while Forcepoint offers multiple deployment options including API-based and forward proxy methods
• Forcepoint provides deeper integration with existing network security infrastructure, while Bitglass emphasizes agentless deployment for quicker implementation

Data protection capabilities represent another area where these solutions diverge. Forcepoint’s DLP engine benefits from decades of development, offering sophisticated content analysis and contextual policy enforcement. Their technology can inspect data at rest, in use, and in motion across cloud and on-premises environments. Policies can be based on content matching, machine learning classification, user risk scores, and numerous other contextual factors. This granular approach enables organizations to implement precise data protection controls that balance security with productivity.

Bitglass brings its own innovations to data protection, particularly through its unique agentless deployment for managed devices. Their Auto-Discovery feature automatically identifies cloud applications in use across the organization, while their real-time inline protection enforces policies as data is being accessed or downloaded. Bitglass excels at protecting data in popular SaaS applications like Office 365, Google Workspace, and Salesforce, with pre-built policy templates that accelerate implementation. Their approach to data protection emphasizes simplicity and rapid time-to-value, making it particularly appealing for organizations with limited security resources.

The user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA) capabilities of both platforms reveal their different security philosophies. Forcepoint’s UEBA technology focuses heavily on understanding typical user behavior patterns and detecting anomalies that might indicate compromised accounts or insider threats. Their risk-adaptive protection automatically adjusts security controls based on calculated risk scores, applying stricter policies for high-risk activities while enabling greater flexibility for trusted behaviors. This approach aims to minimize friction for legitimate users while maintaining strong security.

Bitglass takes a more straightforward approach to anomaly detection, focusing on clear indicators of compromise such as impossible travel scenarios, access from suspicious locations, or unusual download patterns. Their analytics prioritize simplicity and actionable alerts, reducing the need for extensive tuning and configuration. While perhaps less sophisticated than Forcepoint’s behavioral analysis, Bitglass’s approach delivers practical security value with minimal complexity.

Deployment and management considerations often play a decisive role in platform selection. Forcepoint’s unified management console provides a single pane of glass for configuring and monitoring security across web, cloud, and data protection domains. This integrated approach can significantly reduce administrative overhead for organizations already invested in the Forcepoint ecosystem. However, the platform’s breadth of capabilities comes with corresponding complexity, often requiring dedicated training and potentially professional services for optimal configuration.

Bitglass emphasizes operational simplicity throughout their platform design. Their cloud-native architecture eliminates hardware provisioning and maintenance, while their intuitive management interface enables rapid policy creation and modification. The platform’s automated discovery and classification capabilities further reduce administrative burden, making it accessible to organizations with limited security expertise. This focus on usability comes at the cost of some advanced customization options available in more complex platforms like Forcepoint.

Integration capabilities reveal another dimension of the Forcepoint Bitglass comparison. Forcepoint offers extensive APIs and pre-built connectors for security information and event management (SIEM) systems, identity providers, and other security tools. Their technology integrates particularly well with other Forcepoint products, creating a cohesive security ecosystem. Organizations operating in hybrid environments with significant on-premises infrastructure often find Forcepoint’s integration capabilities better suited to their existing technology stack.

Bitglass prioritizes integration with cloud services and SaaS applications, offering deep API-based connections to popular platforms like Office 365, Salesforce, and ServiceNow. Their technology operates independently of network infrastructure, making it well-suited for organizations with predominantly cloud-based operations. The platform’s multitenant architecture ensures that all customers benefit from continuous updates and new integrations without requiring manual upgrades.

Pricing models between these solutions reflect their different value propositions. Forcepoint typically employs a traditional enterprise licensing model based on users, endpoints, or data volume, often with significant discounts for multi-year commitments. Their pricing structure supports the platform’s comprehensive feature set but may prove cost-prohibitive for smaller organizations. Bitglass offers more flexible consumption-based pricing, with options for per-user licensing or specific capability bundles. This flexibility makes Bitglass more accessible to organizations with variable needs or limited budgets.

When considering implementation scenarios, each platform shines in different environments. Forcepoint proves particularly valuable for:

1. Large enterprises with complex hybrid infrastructure spanning cloud and on-premises environments
2. Organizations requiring sophisticated, context-aware data protection policies
3. Companies with existing Forcepoint investments seeking to extend protection to cloud services
4. Regulated industries needing comprehensive audit trails and reporting capabilities

Bitglass demonstrates strengths in:

1. Cloud-first organizations with minimal on-premises infrastructure
2. Companies needing rapid deployment with minimal configuration complexity
3. Organizations with limited security staff requiring intuitive management interfaces
4. Businesses focusing primarily on SaaS application security and shadow IT discovery

The future development trajectories of both platforms continue to evolve under their respective corporate umbrellas. Forcepoint continues to enhance its Human-Centric Security approach, investing in behavioral analytics and risk-adaptive controls. Their recent developments focus on simplifying policy management while maintaining sophisticated protection capabilities. Bitglass, as part of Proofpoint, benefits from integration with a broader security portfolio while maintaining its cloud-native architecture and ease-of-use focus. The platform continues to expand its SaaS application coverage and enhance mobile security capabilities.

In conclusion, the choice between Forcepoint and Bitglass ultimately depends on organizational requirements, existing infrastructure, and security priorities. Forcepoint offers a comprehensive, integrated security platform suited for complex enterprise environments with hybrid infrastructure and sophisticated data protection needs. Bitglass provides a cloud-native, user-friendly alternative ideal for organizations prioritizing rapid deployment, operational simplicity, and SaaS application security. Both platforms represent mature, capable solutions in the cloud security market, each with distinct advantages for specific use cases. Organizations should carefully evaluate their current environment, security requirements, and operational capabilities when considering the Forcepoint Bitglass decision, as the right choice varies significantly based on these contextual factors.