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."I would rate the product's scalability an eight out of ten."
"Jamf Connect is an identity provider, and once you log in, you will have all the device's access."
"Jamf Connect is a pretty simple and straightforward tool overall."
"The solution is scalable."
"It's a good and stable tool, so you should use it if you have a need."
"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."
"It's connection with Azure is the most valuable. It is easy to deploy and connect."
"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 initial setup of Netskope Private Access is pretty simple and straightforward."
"Netskope enables users to securely access private applications remotely without a VPN."
"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."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"We can block and alert the ports and allow the public traffic software in our environment."
"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 logs are an area with a shortcoming."
"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."
"Overall, there is a lack of consistent experience sometimes with some of their features."
"The configuration could be faster."
"Jamf Connect is beginning to implement Multi-Factor Authentication for offline authentication, but the setup documentation is insufficient."
"The solution’s technical support is bad and should be improved."
"The solution needs to improve its licensing."
"The main challenge we are facing across various Trust Network Access (TNA) technologies, including Netskope, is their inability to support broadcast applications or those relying on broadcasting protocols."
"The cost has room for improvement."
"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."
"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 ability to provide more security around agentless access has room for improvement."
"Netskope detects certain data or contents, but there are some limitations on how we can customize those policies for DLP."
"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."
"We faced certain issues with China users as it can be rather challenging for them due to the presence of Great Firewall."
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, Zscaler B2B and Zimperium, whereas Netskope Private Access is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Appgate SDP, Cisco Secure Client and Google BeyondCorp Remote 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.
