We compared Netskope and Cisco Umbrella based on our users' reviews across four parameters. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Cisco Umbrella is praised for its customer service, positive ROI, and ease of use, yet it needs to enhance its user interface, reporting and analytics capabilities, integration with third-party platforms, and customer support. Netskope offers comprehensive data protection and advanced threat protection but could improve its interface, customer support, performance during high traffic, and reporting capabilities. Pricing is competitive for both options.
Features: Netskope stands out with comprehensive data protection and advanced analytics, while Cisco Umbrella excels in robust security measures, seamless integration, user-friendly interface, and reliable performance.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost of Netskope is straightforward, with competitive pricing options, ensuring a smooth experience for customers. Cisco Umbrella also offers reasonable and competitive pricing, with a hassle-free setup cost and a simple and flexible licensing process for easy management. Netskope has shown a positive ROI with improved security, data protection, visibility, threat detection, and cost savings. Cisco Umbrella also provides improved security, productivity, ease of use, and integration with existing systems.
Room for Improvement: Netskope could benefit from improvement in its interface, customer support, performance during high traffic, and reporting capabilities. Cisco Umbrella needs to enhance its interface, the solution's reporting and analytics capabilities, third-party integration, and customer support.
Deployment and customer support: Some Netskope users found the initial setup to be simple and quick, as it only involves rolling out an agent and can be deployed on the cloud. Others mentioned that the implementation phase can be complex and time-consuming, requiring coordination and effort. The deployment process was generally considered easy, especially for those with a networking background. Cisco Umbrella users find the initial setup to be straightforward, with deployment taking as little as a day or two. Others report that deployment can take a couple of days to a few weeks, depending on the complexity of the deployment model and any customization needed. Netskope's customer service is responsive, helpful, and attentive, delivering prompt resolution and knowledgeable assistance. Cisco Umbrella also provides highly regarded customer service, with prompt and efficient assistance and a knowledgeable support team.
The summary above is based on 68 interviews we conducted with Netskope and Cisco Umbrella 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."
"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."
"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."
"When we have laptops that leave the building, they could connect to public WiFi before they establish a VPN connection back into the company. For that duration or that period of time when they're not docked in the network or on a VPN, they effectively don't have that full layer of security that I provide inside the building. This tool stands in during that period of time, and we extend the security settings through their basic firewall or their cloud-based firewall at that time. So, we do content filtering and control access, but they also are looking at new domains, IP addresses, and bad requests. They're blocking them on my behalf when a laptop is not sitting behind our security appliances."
"I like that it integrates with the infrastructure. I also like the kind of data and intelligence that's built-in. It helps create innovative reports for security."
"Provides dependable DNS monitoring of external devices."
"It analyzes the domain security helps us implement the securest policy."
"It is a good cloud-based solution for DNS security."
"Meraki features and cloud-based functionality are advanced and easy to manage centrally."
"It makes it really easy to accomplish content filtering. We don't have to do a lot of customization. You just click the box for the content category and it's up to date."
"It blocks malicious DNS queries daily which is very beneficial."
"Netskope is an efficient, reliable, and easy-to-manage solution."
"The feature that I like best is the GUI."
"The client size and architectural components in Netskope are far better than other solutions."
"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."
"Technical support is good. They are very helpful and quick to resolve any issues we have."
"Netskope is a really good product. I cannot segregate which features are the most valuable. We find most of the features to be valuable. It gives us what we are looking for."
"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."
"Amazing reporting and tracking mechanisms."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There are a couple of interface issues. I know that they say that there are feature enhancements that are noted. For example, we've got the Cisco Meraki security appliances, and there, we geofence our company to where we're allowed to send and receive traffic. So, in our case, by default, we only allow traffic to six different countries, which allows us to effectively prevent traffic for the majority of bad players in the world, but they don't give you an easy way to do that in Cisco Umbrella. With Cisco Meraki, I can specify or pick the countries. I can say that I want to only allow traffic from these six countries, and I'm done. With Cisco Umbrella, I have to rely on the fact that they're going to prevent traffic to other countries. They're going to decide if it's good or bad."
"The integration with other solutions is a little complex. If you want to integrate with something like ArcSight or LogRhythm or Splunk, you need to do a lot of configuration. There are no easy ways to implement it."
"Something on our end that might make it better is alerting going to our ticketing system. It's not something that we have discussed, but that would be a proactive option for us to provide a learning experience for the staff."
"I would like to have more applications being recorded."
"The firewall capabilities could be better. Cisco is starting to introduce some layer 7 capabilities now, but there's still some room to grow. They should continue with the development of Umbrella so that it is a full-blown cloud-managed firewall solution."
"The integration with Cisco could be better."
"Cisco Umbrella should add some more documentation on proxies."
"There should be a way to monitor traffic at the user level."
"In terms of improvements, enhancing support, particularly for OEM support with quicker response times would be beneficial."
"The configuration in the cloud model could be improved upon."
"The CSPM model needs to improve."
"The dashboard performance could be much better and faster, but because it is a complicated product, it takes time for the dashboard to process."
"Compatibility with other proxy polars would be helpful."
"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Lacking in local customer support."
"They could add endpoint security features."
Cisco Umbrella is ranked 1st in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 108 reviews while Netskope is ranked 4th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 35 reviews. Cisco Umbrella is rated 8.8, while Netskope is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Umbrella writes "Protects endpoints wherever they are, always pushing people to the right locations to avoid malicious intent". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netskope writes "Network proxy that provides visibility during deployment and allows you to control PII". Cisco Umbrella is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Palo Alto Networks DNS Security and Cisco Web Security Appliance, whereas Netskope is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Forcepoint ONE and Skyhigh Security. See our Cisco Umbrella vs. Netskope report.
See our list of best Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) vendors and best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) 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.