We performed a comparison between Netskope Private Access and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ZTNA as a Service solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In the VPN scenario, what was happening, the user would get back to the complete source. But in NPA, the application will go to the user. There is an outbound connection. There is no inbound. Storage providers are also not there. It's the best feature because it is the replacement of the VPN."
"There are several valuable features, like advanced security protections, especially the DLP (Data Loss Protection), and there's also browser and web filtering, or content filtering for our users to protect them when accessing certain links or websites, ensuring their security and permission."
"The base features have been fantastic. The ability to be able to granularly assign application access to end-users has been really good."
"It is a stable solution."
"Even without extensive training, if you're a proficient IT professional, you can easily configure it."
"Netskope enables users to securely access private applications remotely without a VPN."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"We can block and alert the ports and allow the public traffic software in our environment."
"Prisma Access provides comprehensive security. It provides URL filtering, application control, SSL, DLP, etc. It provides complete security for the cloud environment."
"This solution provides a DLP on the cloud and very few people have a scanning device for data at rest."
"The features I find most valuable is WildFire, user integration, and the basic technology features."
"The protection for web-based applications was helpful for my colleagues who didn't want a particular application on their devices. And the non-web access protection was more for our developers because they were writing and building code on their computers. Prisma Access was able to protect them."
"I like it because it's very easy to use. You install the client and you have to know your gateway, but that's something we give to our users. Beyond that, it takes about three seconds to train them on how to use it. And it just works well. That's great for us because it means less administrative time."
"Prisma SaaS is very easy to use; it's common sense — it's the best-in-class."
"It supports auto-scaling for mobile users. It auto-scales depending on the mobile user traffic. For example, if 1,000 people are working from home today, and tomorrow, the number increases to 2,000, it is not going to be an issue."
"The solution's most valuable features were the model's reduced complexity on the client side and its capability to provide security."
"We faced certain issues with China users as it can be rather challenging for them due to the presence of Great Firewall."
"There could be an ability to access one server from another when we have console access to the first server."
"The major problem that we are facing is if we deploy Netskope on the server level or if we get a new server in the EMEA factor, it will affect all the machines. Recently, this has caused us to fail some reviews."
"Netskope detects certain data or contents, but there are some limitations on how we can customize those policies for DLP."
"The main challenge we are facing across various Trust Network Access (TNA) technologies, including Netskope, is their inability to support broadcast applications or those relying on broadcasting protocols."
"The solution needs to develop faster features. Its interoperability feature is not working. It takes six months to one year for any product to implement the improvements. However, the process should be faster to implement the changes quickly."
"I would like to see them go down the path of including SD-WAN. Currently, they don't do SD-WAN. If they could somehow natively do that inside of the platform, that would be amazing. I don't know if they're going to do it, but it would be amazing if they do."
"The product is not easy to use."
"Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks should consolidate the portals into a single portal. It is slow and takes more than ten seconds to load a page."
"When it comes to the VPN, it uses the global protect VPN functionality to connect remotely, but it has a feature limitation for assigning multiple IP sub-links to different user groups. It would be much better if we are able to assign the current IP blocks for the sub-links based on the user groups."
"The Cloud Management application has room for improvement. There are a lot of things on the roadmap for that application; things are going to happen soon."
"It wasn't so satisfying to work with it. There is room for improvement in the policy management. It is difficult to cover the entire scenery through Palo Alto products."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required. The solution's price should be lowered."
"We've run into some challenges, having hit a lot of bugs over the past year in the deployment of GlobalProtect. We've had our fair share of issues that I haven't been happy with. We're working with the support organization to remediate them and waiting for updated releases. The response on getting the bugs fixed has not been what I would consider adequate for a product like this."
"The licensing model isn't flexible enough. It's an all-or-nothing model. Other providers in the market allow you to buy modules or add-ons separately. With Prisma Access, you have to purchase the same module for all users."
"Its security is good. Everything is good, but the way the dashboard responds can be improved. It takes time to implement a policy. If you change only two or three lines and push the policy to make the change work, it takes 20 to 30 minutes even for a small change. That is something very irritating from the implementation perspective."
More Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Netskope Private Access is ranked 7th in ZTNA as a Service with 14 reviews while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 2nd in ZTNA as a Service with 59 reviews. Netskope Private Access is rated 8.6, while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Netskope Private Access writes "Provides network visibility, infrastructure protection and advanced security protections, especially the DLP (Data Loss Protection)". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks writes "Integration with Palo Alto platforms such as Cortex Data Lake and Autofocus gives us visibility into our attack surface". Netskope Private Access is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Appgate SDP, Cisco Secure Client, Jamf Connect and Google BeyondCorp Remote Access, whereas Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Netskope , Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access and Prisma SD-WAN. See our Netskope Private Access vs. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks report.
See our list of best ZTNA as a Service vendors.
We monitor all ZTNA as a Service 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.
