We performed a comparison between Netskope and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"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."
"Technical support is pretty good."
"Netskope is an efficient, reliable, and easy-to-manage solution."
"The most valuable feature of Netskope is protection."
"The detection capability is very nice and lightweight."
"Technical support is good. They are very helpful and quick to resolve any issues we have."
"The automation offered by the product is pretty solid."
"The client size and architectural components in Netskope are far better than other solutions."
"In Azure, we have multiple subscriptions and with every subscription, we add some kind of instance ID. We can work with the instance ID so that we allow all of the instances containing nodules. Everything else, we block. This way, if you go to outlook.com and check your email, if you log in with your company account, the instance ID will show. The network will take action according to the instance ID and say, "You are using the enterprise email. I'll let you surf. I'll let you see your email." But when you try to log in with your own email address, like Hotmail or Gmail, the instance ID will be different. This way we are not completely blocking Outlook, but we are blocking people from accessing their Outlook. We are only allowing the enterprise-level emails, and we are not allowing user-based emails."
"The most valuable feature is the manageability of the micro tunnels."
"Sandboxing, DLP, and SSL inspection engine are the most valuable features of Zscaler SASE."
"The ZPA is a unique feature which offers VPN along with all the additional security needed."
"The Live Logs are a cool feature. We can directly identify issues and divert user traffic."
"It does the job. What it is needed for. I can use it for VPN, I can use it for secure connections, I can use it as a firewall. So the solution does the job."
"The most valuable features are the File Type Control and SSL bypass policies. We"
"We don't need to connect anymore. It is automatically connected when you log on in Windows."
"The solution offers a simplified network infrastructure and security functions and it enables secure remote access for the users"
"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."
"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"
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"I deduced two points: one for their feature modification and one for the feature maturity of the solution."
"The configuration in the cloud model could be improved upon."
"If we need to allow a process that is blocked by Netskope, we have to manually check the logs to see why it is blocked. This can be time-consuming and inefficient"
"In some cases, when you have a lot of policies, it can get confusing for users and you can get lost in the GUI."
"The solution's documentation still needs to be improved."
"There could be room for improvement in the subscription process."
"The configuration and user behaviour analytics can be improved."
"Netskope needs to improve its stability."
"Zscaler Private Access could improve by improving external access. If external parties want to access locally to my company's services, we need to onboard them into our domain, otherwise, it doesn't work. Additionally, if their company also has Zscaler Private Access, then it doesn't work. They need to log in with our domain ID, not their company ID."
"It has massive room for improvement. The Zscaler product itself is okay, but it doesn't give enough granularity for us as an organization to stipulate rules or processes, especially for data-driven services. For instance, we can stick on SSL inspection, but it's just a click box. It doesn't allow us to go any further into the detail of the SSL inspection. We also can't pull it out without having an additional logging server. It just doesn't give us enough granularity. They should give us more control over the interfaces because it is all backend. They weren't very open to discussing their backend architecture with us in terms of their own data centers. They can maybe a little bit more open about what components are there and how the backend infrastructure works alongside Zscaler. Its licensing can be better. Some of the additional licensing costs are quite high, and they should have certain features ready and available as a baseline rather than having to purchase additional licenses for it. Their support should also be improved. I initially had a consultant from Zscaler for its deployment, but the support that I had throughout the deployment of the project wasn't the best."
"To enhance their offering, it is advisable for them to focus on strengthening the foundation of their architecture. Additionally, they should consider integrating a broader range of services that go beyond what managed service providers typically offer independently."
"The menu for the ZIA portal could be organized a little bit differently. The most-used modules should be at the top of the menus, not somewhere near the bottom, some of them are not organized well in my opinion."
"We'd like to have two-factor authentication that is quite simple."
"More on-prem infrastructure is required when Zscaler Private Access is to be implemented as a single point of entry."
"The pricing for Private Access seems to be on the expensive side, and I believe they should consider making it more competitive with other solutions."
"What could be improved in Zscaler Private Access is its notification. For example, if there's a speed issue, there should be a pop-up that alerts the user about it. If there is a network quality issue, for example, it isn't good enough to connect to, or the network quality is bad, there should be a notification from the solution. Zscaler Private Access also needs improvement in terms of its interface and security."
Netskope is ranked 4th in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) with 35 reviews while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is ranked 3rd in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) with 34 reviews. Netskope is rated 8.4, while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is rated 8.4. 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 Zero Trust Exchange writes "Allows for strict access control, granting access to specific applications at a URL level rather than at the physical IP level". Netskope is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Cisco Umbrella and Check Point Quantum SASE, whereas Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Axis Security, Cloudflare Access and Perimeter 81. See our Netskope vs. Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange report.
See our list of best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) vendors.
We monitor all Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) 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.