We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway and Zscaler Internet Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Secure Web Gateways (SWG) 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 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 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."
"I would recommend it to others as it's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is the antivirus."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the antivirus and child protection features."
"The most valuable aspect for me is the user-friendly interface."
"After a proper implementation, the maintenance is very low."
"The protection is most valuable."
"SSL inspection is a valuable feature."
"For our needs, the cloud-native proxy architecture is a very good solution. We are moving away from on-prem appliances and moving more toward cloud-based solutions. Zscaler is a good fit for our strategy. This architecture helps with cyber threats because we inspect most of the traffic and we can see that a lot of threats are stopped directly in the secure web gateway."
"It is easy to set up the solution."
"Tech support is good."
"The solution replaces multiple vendor technologies with one which makes it worth the cost."
"The scanning feature is impressive, because they do not introduce a big latency to the traffic."
"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."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"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"
"The initial setup of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is complex. The full deployment took approximately two weeks."
"The customer support of the product is an area with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"I believe the absence of a procedure is the main issue."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the pricing."
"The performance needs improvement. Some areas create performance issues and, depending on the use cases, require reconfiguration to perform again."
"Cloud App’s database should be improved."
"The OS capabilities and WSL support could be improved."
"Zscaler needs to add client-to-client communication. It's always client-to-server communication. The cloud and branch connectors could be improved because we're still dependent on traditional firewalls. They should eliminate this. They should also provide WAN devices should to compete with the SD-WAN solutions also."
"We'd like to have more plugins and integration."
"They could provide more time for the onboarding the training of an IT person."
"In every cloud service in the world, you have multiple upstream internet providers to create diversity so that if one of your providers fails, your network just continues. In South Africa, there is only one upstream provider, and that's not right. That that's a problem."
"Zscaler Internet Access could improve by adding a VPN feature."
More Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is ranked 18th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 6 reviews while Zscaler Internet Access is ranked 2nd in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 46 reviews. Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is rated 8.6, while Zscaler Internet Access is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway writes "Is easy to use and is scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler Internet Access writes "Provides integrated CASB and file sandboxing but could be less expensive ". Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is most compared with AhnLab V3 Internet Security, Cisco Umbrella and Quad9, whereas Zscaler Internet Access is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and FortiSASE . See our Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway vs. Zscaler Internet Access report.
See our list of best Secure Web Gateways (SWG) vendors.
We monitor all Secure Web Gateways (SWG) 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.