Conceal

Name: Conceal
Brand: Conceal
Rating: 5 (1 reviews)

World’s First Browser-Native SSE protects users from threats and securely connects to SaaS and internal apps.

Est 2012|Valuation $75M|Raised $35.7M|1 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 14K|Web traffic 3K|FTEs 53|HQ Augusta, Georgia, US

MarketsSecurity Service Edge (SSE)

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where this vendor may be a reasonable fit: - Extension-first or browser-native control approaches can simplify rollout compared with heavier agent or virtualized browser architectures in some environments, particularly for MSP-led deployments. - Selective isolation offers a tradeoff that can reduce user disruption compared with approaches that isolate all sessions; effectiveness depends on detection quality and policy tuning. Where alternatives may offer advantages: - Vendors with larger review footprints and longer market presence provide additional third-party validation for buyers that prioritize market maturity. - Secure workspace platforms offer broader capabilities if the requirement extends beyond browser sessions to entire application or desktop delivery. Market adoption signals indicate active channel partnerships and reseller listings, but overall independent review volume appears lower than for some established isolation providers.

	Conceal (ConcealBrowse / Browser-Native SSE)	Menlo Security	Kasm Workspaces
Starting Price	Published pricing is not prominently listed; public procurement records indicate varied pricing depending on contract volume and user type.	Pricing is typically quote-based and varies by deployment; vendor provides pricing guidance and estimators.	Pricing varies by edition and deployment model; specific pricing details were not captured in the materials used for this report.
Best For	Organizations seeking browser-layer controls and selective isolation delivered through extension-based deployments; MSP channel distribution models.	Organizations seeking mature, network-based remote browser isolation with broader market validation and review coverage.	Teams requiring secure workspace delivery or containerized app/browser streaming beyond browser-only controls.
Key Strength	Browser-extension delivery model and selective isolation capabilities; vendor-provided management console for policy control.	Established market presence in isolation; broader independent review volume and enterprise deployments.	Flexible secure workspace model that can deliver full application or desktop isolation rather than only browser controls.
Key Weakness	Limited independent review coverage and public compliance documentation; operational constraints tied to extension deployment and potential false positives.	Enterprise pricing and deployment complexity for some customers; isolation models can introduce workflow changes if not tuned.	Operational weight for some deployments relative to lightweight extension-based approaches.

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where this vendor may be a reasonable fit:

Extension-first or browser-native control approaches can simplify rollout compared with heavier agent or virtualized browser architectures in some environments, particularly for MSP-led deployments.
Selective isolation offers a tradeoff that can reduce user disruption compared with approaches that isolate all sessions; effectiveness depends on detection quality and policy tuning.

Where alternatives may offer advantages:

Vendors with larger review footprints and longer market presence provide additional third-party validation for buyers that prioritize market maturity.
Secure workspace platforms offer broader capabilities if the requirement extends beyond browser sessions to entire application or desktop delivery.

Market adoption signals indicate active channel partnerships and reseller listings, but overall independent review volume appears lower than for some established isolation providers.

	Conceal (ConcealBrowse / Browser-Native SSE)	Menlo Security	Kasm Workspaces
Starting Price	Published pricing is not prominently listed; public procurement records indicate varied pricing depending on contract volume and user type.	Pricing is typically quote-based and varies by deployment; vendor provides pricing guidance and estimators.	Pricing varies by edition and deployment model; specific pricing details were not captured in the materials used for this report.
Best For	Organizations seeking browser-layer controls and selective isolation delivered through extension-based deployments; MSP channel distribution models.	Organizations seeking mature, network-based remote browser isolation with broader market validation and review coverage.	Teams requiring secure workspace delivery or containerized app/browser streaming beyond browser-only controls.
Key Strength	Browser-extension delivery model and selective isolation capabilities; vendor-provided management console for policy control.	Established market presence in isolation; broader independent review volume and enterprise deployments.	Flexible secure workspace model that can deliver full application or desktop isolation rather than only browser controls.
Key Weakness	Limited independent review coverage and public compliance documentation; operational constraints tied to extension deployment and potential false positives.	Enterprise pricing and deployment complexity for some customers; isolation models can introduce workflow changes if not tuned.	Operational weight for some deployments relative to lightweight extension-based approaches.