We performed a comparison between Netskope and Saviynt based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Saviynt has more comprehensive features than Netskope, including backflow handling, certification features, and global third-party user management. Saviynt also has an intuitive UI, in-depth identity knowledge, and report generation features. However, Saviynt's technical support and licensing costs need improvement. Netskope is praised for its protection features and better client size and architectural components, and ability to work with instance IDs in Azure. Netskope's technical support is generally good, and the initial setup is easy. However, Netskope needs better integration with other solutions, improved support services, and more visibility on the reporting side.
"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."
"They are very good at CASB as compared to other players."
"Netskope's control is user-friendly and comprehensible. It also helps in conveying information effectively as a company, making it crucial for customer satisfaction."
"Netskope is a one-platform security product that provides security functions. It is the most advantageous product in the Japanese market."
"It's one of the top-ranking solutions in the market, and it's very responsive. We are using Netskope, and Netskope provides a load of features for SQL, STP, and traffic control."
"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."
"The solution offers a better understanding of the real scenario and identifies the cloud apps that are being utilized."
"It has hundreds of features and many of them are useful."
"Their technical support is very good."
"Saviynt is easy to configure and manage."
"The product is flexible to use."
"We have found the implementation process to be very easy."
"The dedicated Freshdesk platform is a user community and a step in the right direction for offering learning resources."
"Saviynt provides built-in access recommendations, while SailPoint IdentityNow offers access recommendations through a separate AI integration that requires additional licensing. Saviynt functions as a unified platform for various business operations, consolidating user and access data from multiple sources into a single platform. This allows for leveraging the same user base and data across different business functions, including access governance, privileged access management, data access governance, and third-party access governance. In contrast, SailPoint is a decoupled tool, requiring separate integration for managing access and permissions, especially for unstructured data. Saviynt's approach is more integrated and streamlined, providing a unified platform for access recommendations and various business operations."
"It is a flexible tool because it works on JSON."
"Saviynt risk-based access requests and intelligent access controls have made a significant impact on our company."
"Saviynt has better integration with enterprise systems like SAP, Microsoft, Adobe, and AWS."
"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"
"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."
"Technical support and the user interface could be improved."
"It should have user behavior analysis and diverse analysis."
"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."
"Support services could definitely be improved. Support is the one area that can always use improvement. It's an evolving thing, so based on demand and based on market requirement and the way market is moving towards."
"The configuration in the cloud model could be improved upon."
"They could add endpoint security features."
"There could be better integration with other solutions."
"Lacking in local customer support."
"The customer support and implementation services need to be improved."
"The custom application integration is a little complex, and this tool doesn't provide so many plugins or additional applications."
"The technical support team's response time could be improved."
"It is time-consuming to troubleshoot issues."
"The biggest drawback is that for every change you want to make, you have to go back to them and ask for it."
"The solution does not work very well as the number of users increases."
"We sometimes experience performance issues when the solution fails to process the data between two different applications."
"The tool is difficult to migrate."
Netskope is ranked 4th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 35 reviews while Saviynt is ranked 7th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 21 reviews. Netskope is rated 8.4, while Saviynt is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Netskope writes "Network proxy that provides visibility during deployment and allows you to control PII". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Saviynt writes "Used for IAM, IGA, MFA, SSO, and access management". Netskope is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Cisco Umbrella and Skyhigh Security, whereas Saviynt is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Microsoft Entra ID, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Okta Workforce Identity and Microsoft Identity Manager. See our Netskope vs. Saviynt report.
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.