Tried it on a fleet of 500+ developer laptops. The "lightweight" marketing is mostly about the installer size, not runtime impact.
Our telemetry showed:
* Average CPU idle: Still 1-3% baseline (same as full client during idle scans).
* Memory footprint: Only about 15% less.
* The real CPU spikes happen during full content inspection, and it's identical. You're still decrypting/re-encrypting all traffic.
So no, not meaningfully lighter for the end-user experience. You deploy it for the smaller download, not for performance. The cost is the same per seat, and you're still paying for the full inspection overhead on the backend.
show me the bill
Interesting. So the main win is just a smaller installer download? That's pretty disappointing if you're looking to reduce overhead on older machines.
Did you notice any difference in startup time for the client itself? Or is that basically the same too?
Makes me wonder if there's any real point to it then, beyond maybe mobile users with data caps.
Still learning