We performed a comparison between Netskope and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"The solution is stable."
"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 most valuable features were related to discovery, data protection, and ensuring compliance with regulations."
"It's a comprehensive security portfolio solution."
"It has hundreds of features and many of them are useful."
"I have found the most useful features to be the Web Secure Gateway, CASB, infrastructural service scanning, and Zero Trust."
"The product's analytics part is pretty fine."
"The initial setup of Netskope CASB is easy, it is not complex."
"Technical support is pretty good."
"The detection capability is very nice and lightweight."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to establish connectivity for remote users and remote endpoints. It offers a high level of granularity compared to typical VPNs, which also encapsulate a lot of I/O."
"It is straightforward to set up."
"The product's most valuable features are cloud-based services and secure internet access. We don't have to set up any physical appliances."
"We don't need to connect anymore. It is automatically connected when you log on in Windows."
"It is easy to use."
"The most valuable features are the File Type Control and SSL bypass policies. We"
"Zscaler Private Access is a platform that eliminates the complexity of VPN configuration."
"The most valuable features of Zscaler Private Access are reliability, scalability, and availability."
"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."
"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."
"The CSPM model needs to improve."
"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It should have user behavior analysis and diverse analysis."
"Deployment and policy tweaking were two areas where improvement needs to be made."
"Compatibility with other proxy polars would be helpful."
"Netskope needs to improve its stability."
"Lacking in local customer support."
"The configuration in the cloud model could be improved upon."
"Setup is a bit complex because there are many steps that need to be taken before onboarding and activating the solution."
"Zscaler Private Access's reporting is poor. We should have more insight into the reports regarding what is blocked and allowed."
"It has massive room for improvement. The Zscaler product itself is okay, but it doesn't give enough granularity for us as an organization to stipulate rules or processes, especially for data-driven services. For instance, we can stick on SSL inspection, but it's just a click box. It doesn't allow us to go any further into the detail of the SSL inspection. We also can't pull it out without having an additional logging server. It just doesn't give us enough granularity. They should give us more control over the interfaces because it is all backend. They weren't very open to discussing their backend architecture with us in terms of their own data centers. They can maybe a little bit more open about what components are there and how the backend infrastructure works alongside Zscaler. Its licensing can be better. Some of the additional licensing costs are quite high, and they should have certain features ready and available as a baseline rather than having to purchase additional licenses for it. Their support should also be improved. I initially had a consultant from Zscaler for its deployment, but the support that I had throughout the deployment of the project wasn't the best."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The interface needs a bit of work."
"We faced certain migration and implementation challenges in executing the tasks, so I would suggest improvement related to the stability of the solution."
"Conflicts arise if you do not have the same management teams on the product."
"Sometimes applications crash on some machines, and we’d like Zscaler to give us some information as to why that may have happened. We’d like more detailed reports."
Netskope is ranked 4th in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) with 35 reviews while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is ranked 3rd in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) with 34 reviews. Netskope is rated 8.4, while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is rated 8.4. 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 Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange writes "Allows for strict access control, granting access to specific applications at a URL level rather than at the physical IP level". Netskope is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Cisco Umbrella and Check Point Quantum SASE, whereas Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Axis Security, Cloudflare Access and Perimeter 81. See our Netskope vs. Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange report.
See our list of best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) vendors.
We monitor all Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) 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.