We performed a comparison between Jamf Connect and Netskope Private Access 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."It's a good and stable tool, so you should use it if you have a need."
"Jamf Connect is a pretty simple and straightforward tool overall."
"It's connection with Azure is the most valuable. It is easy to deploy and connect."
"The solution is scalable."
"Jamf Connect allows for easy and seamless joining of Mac devices to Azure AD, eliminating the need for third-party involvement or support engineer assistance."
"Jamf Connect is an identity provider, and once you log in, you will have all the device's access."
"The tool supports different types of authentication. It also integrates seamlessly if you are using other Jamf products."
"The most valuable feature is the synchronization of passwords with a local password, which works well."
"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."
"The initial setup of Netskope Private Access is pretty simple and straightforward."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The product's scalability is good."
"Netskope enables users to securely access private applications remotely without a VPN."
"Even without extensive training, if you're a proficient IT professional, you can easily configure it."
"In the firewall, we don't have a user-based policies list, and we can't create them. Netskope helps us to create user-based policies. For example, if there are specific teams like HR or more than nine teams, and we want logs from access over particular URLs, and we don't want to allow that specific URL for certain users, we can create these policies in Netskope. It's handy, easy to use for new users, and has a cool GUI interface. We can create multiple policies, and as for the proxy, it's a leading solution."
"The most valuable feature is being able to see who is accessing the application, whether it is a managed device or a bring-your-own-device published by Netskope."
"Overall, there is a lack of consistent experience sometimes with some of their features."
"When a Mac is joined to Azure, the generic Pro console in the MDM should accurately display the Mac as joined to Azure in the inventory section. Currently, it shows "no domain account found," which can be misleading."
"The logs are an area with a shortcoming."
"Jamf Connect is beginning to implement Multi-Factor Authentication for offline authentication, but the setup documentation is insufficient."
"The configuration could be faster."
"We've had some issues when users restart their devices because the device asks for credentials afterward. Jamf Connect asks for a username, password, and MFA."
"The solution's UI could be more user-friendly for the setup process."
"The solution’s technical support is bad and should be improved."
"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."
"Netskope Private Access allows mapping only one DNS server. If a user uses a secondary DNS on-premises, Netskope fails to disconnect them. This is an issue that needs to be addressed."
"The ability to provide more security around agentless access has room for improvement."
"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."
"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 Private Access only supports TCP and UDP ports and does not support ICMP or ping."
"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."
Jamf Connect is ranked 8th in ZTNA as a Service with 10 reviews while Netskope Private Access is ranked 7th in ZTNA as a Service with 14 reviews. Jamf Connect is rated 9.4, while Netskope Private Access is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Jamf Connect writes "Enhances user convenience by streamlining login processes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netskope Private Access writes "Provides network visibility, infrastructure protection and advanced security protections, especially the DLP (Data Loss Protection)". Jamf Connect is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, VMware Workspace ONE, Zimperium and Microsoft Intune, whereas Netskope Private Access is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Appgate SDP, Cisco Secure Client and Cloudflare Access. See our Jamf Connect vs. Netskope Private Access 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.
