We performed a comparison between Netskope Private Access and Perimeter 81 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."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."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"There are several valuable features, like advanced security protections, especially the DLP (Data Loss Protection), and there's also browser and web filtering, or content filtering for our users to protect them when accessing certain links or websites, ensuring their security and permission."
"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."
"The product's scalability is good."
"The initial setup of Netskope Private Access is pretty simple and straightforward."
"Even without extensive training, if you're a proficient IT professional, you can easily configure it."
"Perimeter 81 has increased my security and privacy while maintaining solid internet performance."
"Logging back into Perimeter 81 is relatively user-friendly as I just need to re-type my Windows credentials in to access the VPN."
"Providing access and security allows our company employees to work from home and remotely."
"The solution provides us with an easy way to configure and join the VPN with Perimeter 81."
"Distributing the agent was very simple, allowing us to enforce security posture on our devices (i.e. S1, Disk-encryption, etc.)."
"The benefits are really built into the underlying protocol, however, Perimeter81 makes these available in a user-friendly way."
"It has provided a seamless gateway to much-needed platforms."
"Our operators can work from home without any problems."
"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."
"The product is not easy to use."
"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 ability to provide more security around agentless access has room for improvement."
"We faced certain issues with China users as it can be rather challenging for them due to the presence of Great Firewall."
"Netskope needs to provide some kind of data protection strategy as well because, currently, if you connect through private access, we don't have any data protection policies or implementation."
"Netskope Private Access only supports TCP and UDP ports and does not support ICMP or ping."
"The cost has room for improvement."
"Currently, I am not able to define a different country or location, which can result in negative experiences as the tool is being recognized by websites and this can make it difficult to access them or force me to disable the program temporarily."
"There are a few areas where the solution could be improved. For instance, we sometimes encounter connectivity issues, which can be problematic. Recently, I experienced a connectivity issue while trying to move to Azure. Connectivity issues can be quite frustrating."
"I'd love to learn more about all of the features. Maybe a monthly spotlight of features or having a banner that explains more ways certain features could be used would be helpful."
"I have found that the log-in/out process takes quite some time."
"The overall UI could be improved and updated to bring a simpler feel to the application."
"The solution's speed of upload and download is an area where it lacks"
"What would be useful would be a notification/warning that a session is due to timeout after exceeding the default connection limit."
"One of the more negative experiences using Perimeter 81 is the fact that I am logged off after a pre-determined amount of time which cuts off access to some of my company's resources."
Netskope Private Access is ranked 7th in ZTNA as a Service with 14 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 5th in ZTNA as a Service with 22 reviews. Netskope Private Access is rated 8.6, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Netskope Private Access writes "Provides network visibility, infrastructure protection and advanced security protections, especially the DLP (Data Loss Protection)". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". Netskope Private Access is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Appgate SDP and Cisco Secure Client, whereas Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access and Tailscale. See our Netskope Private Access vs. Perimeter 81 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.
