We performed a comparison between CensorNet Cloud Application Security and Netskope based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks and others in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)."The solution is stable."
"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 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."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable features were related to discovery, data protection, and ensuring compliance with regulations."
"Netskope is an efficient, reliable, and easy-to-manage solution."
"Their technical support is very good."
"A very straightforward interface."
"A feature that was valuable was the built-in website classification or safety ratings. Different websites would be rated according to analyses that the Netskope team had done, and we built policies on some of those scores. If the website scored less than a certain percentage, then we would have a different user experience around how the site would interact with the clients."
"It is a very scalable tool."
"The interface is good."
"The client size and architectural components in Netskope are far better than other solutions."
"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."
"We face some API errors on the portal."
"Lacking in local customer support."
"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 dashboard performance could be much better and faster, but because it is a complicated product, it takes time for the dashboard to process."
"They can focus more on ease of admin, ease of use, and ease of migration. Migration should be simple for companies that are using a different platform and would like to move to Netskope. Everyone looks for a simple migration. They can also focus more on cloud services and cloud trends. They have to see the cloud market, and they should try to compete with Zscaler and other players. They should also work on licensing costs."
"It needed some fine-tuning on core business sites that we used, which were sensitive to what we term a man-in-the-middle certificate by design. Some sites were not tolerant because they presented as potentially malicious. So, we just had to make some tweaks so that it would bypass or interpret it."
"The solution's implementations can be made much easier because, currently, it is complex in nature."
"Compatibility with other proxy polars would be helpful."
"Deployment and policy tweaking were two areas where improvement needs to be made."
More CensorNet Cloud Application Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
CensorNet Cloud Application Security is ranked 16th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 1 review while Netskope is ranked 4th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 35 reviews. CensorNet Cloud Application Security is rated 9.0, while Netskope is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CensorNet Cloud Application Security writes "User-friendly, affordable, and provides visibility into user activities on the corporate network". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netskope writes "Network proxy that provides visibility during deployment and allows you to control PII". CensorNet Cloud Application Security is most compared with , whereas Netskope is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Cisco Umbrella and Forcepoint ONE.
See our list of best Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) vendors.
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.