We compared Netskope and Zscaler Internet Access based on our users' reviews across five parameters. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Netskope and Zscaler Internet Access are both highly regarded for their comprehensive data protection capabilities, advanced threat protection, and valuable insights provided by advanced analytics. However, user feedback for Netskope indicates a need for improvement in areas such as user interface, customer support, performance during high-traffic periods, and reporting capabilities. Zscaler Internet Access receives praise for its exceptional customer service, ease of use, scalability, and reliable performance. Areas for improvement noted for Zscaler include enhancing the user interface, addressing occasional connectivity issues, providing more customization options, and optimizing reporting and analytics features.
Features: Netskope's valuable features include comprehensive data protection, advanced threat protection, advanced analytics, and granular policy enforcement. Zscaler Internet Access offers robust security measures, efficient cloud-based architecture, comprehensive web filtering capabilities, and reliable performance.
Pricing and ROI: Netskope offers a straightforward setup with competitive pricing options and reasonable licensing terms. Zscaler Internet Access also provides a hassle-free setup at a reasonable price. Its licensing process is flexible and can accommodate various business needs. Netskope's ROI is attributed to improved security, data protection, visibility, threat detection, system integration, and cost savings. Zscaler's ROI focuses on network security, productivity, cost savings, ease of use, scalability, and reliable performance.
Room for Improvement: Netskope could benefit from a more intuitive interface, better customer support, improved performance during high-traffic periods, and more comprehensive reporting. Zscaler Internet Access should enhance the user interface, address connectivity issues, offer customization options, and optimize reporting and analytics.
Deployment and customer support: The initial setup phase of Netskope is quick, with the solution being deployed on the cloud. However, there are potential complexities and variations in setup time depending on customer needs. The implementation phase takes longer and requires coordination efforts. Deployment time ranges from a couple of weeks to three months. Zscaler setup can vary depending on factors such as the complexity of the setup, the number of users and locations, and the level of support needed. Some users reported that the initial setup was straightforward and easy, taking around 15 minutes to three days. Others mentioned that the deployment process took between six to eight weeks or even several months. Netskope is praised for its responsive, helpful, and attentive customer service. They offer prompt resolution to queries and knowledgeable assistance. Zscaler Internet Access provides exceptional customer service with prompt and helpful assistance. The support team is described as knowledgeable, responsive, and efficient in resolving issues or concerns.
The summary above is based on 50 interviews we conducted with Netskope and Zscaler Internet Access users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"The solution is stable."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"Amazing reporting and tracking mechanisms."
"Technical support is pretty good."
"The automation offered by the product is pretty solid."
"It's a comprehensive security portfolio solution."
"The detection capability is very nice and lightweight."
"It is a very scalable tool."
"The feature that I like best is the GUI."
"It has hundreds of features and many of them are useful."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"One on the main benefits is protection all time from anywhere."
"The most valuable features of Zscaler Internet Access are it's on the cloud, high network performance, and the interception of users is very easy."
"The solution’s customer service is good."
"We don't have to buy equipment to use it. And when our engineers set it up on our side, we just configured a few settings and we were in."
"I like the granularity of the control of all the traffic, including SSL inspection. I also like the fact that the user interface is intuitive. The latencies with Zscaler are minimal compared to those of any other competitor. Other competitors do not really have the global scale that Zscaler has and cannot promise low latencies."
"Zscaler Internet Access's best feature is the granular policy controls."
"The URL filtering has been the most valuable feature."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"There could be room for improvement in the subscription process."
"Technical support and the user interface could be improved."
"Netskope needs to improve its stability."
"Deployment and policy tweaking were two areas where improvement needs to be made."
"They could add endpoint security features."
"The dashboard performance could be much better and faster, but because it is a complicated product, it takes time for the dashboard to process."
"There should be some granular custom roles that are not available. However, this is on the road map. There are many devices that do not have the Zero Trust feature and other enhancements available which they should have."
"The solution's documentation still needs to be improved."
"Zscaler should provide adjacent services, which would be complementary to their current offering that could to be more pragmatic for a customer. For example, if you take Akamai, you get multiple sets of services, all depending on the customer and the strategy and the complexity and the problems. In some areas, they are more varied in terms of coverage."
"Zscaler should continue to make the user interface better. They should also improve the backup network and continue to expand it so that it can handle larger numbers of customers."
"When you have appliances, SSL inspection is always a headache due to poor performance and/or lack of ciphers implemented. "
"In every cloud service in the world, you have multiple upstream internet providers to create diversity so that if one of your providers fails, your network just continues. In South Africa, there is only one upstream provider, and that's not right. That that's a problem."
"Sometimes, support isn't available."
"Zscaler does not provide dedicated IPs to each customer. Hence, they share a pool of IPs provided by Zscaler. There is a chance of blacklisting these IPs. I also do not like the multi-management portal."
"The pricing is an issue. It is expensive if you have all of your users in the same location. It is expensive compared to other firewalls on the market."
"The solution is expensive. They recently revised the pricing and packaging. Some of our existing customers have been asking for alternate solutions for a lower price."
Netskope is ranked 4th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 35 reviews while Zscaler Internet Access is ranked 2nd in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 46 reviews. Netskope is rated 8.4, while Zscaler Internet Access is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Netskope writes "Network proxy that provides visibility during deployment and allows you to control PII". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler Internet Access writes "Provides integrated CASB and file sandboxing but could be less expensive ". Netskope is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Cisco Umbrella, Forcepoint ONE and Skyhigh Security, whereas Zscaler Internet Access is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, FortiSASE and Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway.
We monitor all Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.