We performed a comparison between Skyhigh Security and Zscaler Internet Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Zscaler Internet Access is the preferred choice over Skyhigh Security based on user reviews. It offers advanced threat protection, cloud sandbox VNS security access control, and data protection features, making it a reliable choice for remote users. It also has a more competitive pricing model and has helped organizations save costs by reducing the total cost of ownership. Overall, Zscaler Internet Access offers a better ROI and more comprehensive features for cloud security.
"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."
"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."
"What's most valuable in Skyhigh Security is its level of security. Another valuable feature of the solution is threat analysis."
"DLP policies and anomalies."
"Shadow IT reporting capabilities."
"The support is excellent."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"The stability is the most valuable feature. We haven't had any issues with the product."
"I like the encrypted disk feature and the endpoint protection."
"The most valuable features of MVISION Cloud are the automatic reports and modification incidents."
"Whether you are in a hotel somewhere, or in Africa, it does not matter. You will get the Zscaler protection presence anywhere."
"Overall, we're very happy with our product."
"I like the granularity of the control of all the traffic, including SSL inspection. I also like the fact that the user interface is intuitive. The latencies with Zscaler are minimal compared to those of any other competitor. Other competitors do not really have the global scale that Zscaler has and cannot promise low latencies."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is SWG traffic."
"One on the main benefits is protection all time from anywhere."
"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."
"After a proper implementation, the maintenance is very low."
"The scanning feature is impressive, because they do not introduce a big latency to the traffic."
"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."
"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."
"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"
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"The tool could improve flexibility with the creation of reports/querying data."
"Though the Skyhigh Dashboard is processing large amounts of data, the speed of the Dashboard could be improved."
"One area for improvement I've seen in Skyhigh Security is that it lacks support for unsanctioned applications, where customers have their applications. Those applications do not come from Microsoft or other popular vendors. For example, Microsoft has support for Teams and it has support for OneDrive, but it doesn't have support for custom applications built by customers. Customers have internal teams building and publishing applications to the external world, but Skyhigh Security doesn't have support for those applications, and this is the main problem I've seen. The solution only supports a pool of applications that are from Microsoft and other major SaaS vendors. McAfee doesn't provide support for custom applications, compared to other vendors who provide it. For example, Bitglass and Netskope both have support for custom applications. Another area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is that its API support is a little weak. I also have not seen a strong integration between the solution and other McAfee products."
"The solution is hard to configure, our team does not have specific training requirements for McAfee making it difficult."
"There isn't really any aspect that is lacking."
"One thing that can be improved is their ability to integrate with other web proxies to discover unsanctioned IP apps."
"The encrypted disk implementation could be improved. I currently use it from a dongle or USB key with two-factor authentication to access my computer."
"The only thing we have faced is that sometimes, randomly, the portal becomes too slow."
"We'd like to have more plugins and integration."
"They should enhance the audit reporting feature."
"Sometimes, support isn't available."
"I would like to see more training and video documentation."
"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."
"There are some performance issues when we add on additional controls."
"It also needs better integration with other applications as well. There are some restrictions."
"Technical support could be better."
Skyhigh Security is ranked 6th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 51 reviews while Zscaler Internet Access is ranked 2nd in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 46 reviews. Skyhigh Security is rated 8.4, while Zscaler Internet Access is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Skyhigh Security writes "Good scalability, but the technical support service needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler Internet Access writes "Provides integrated CASB and file sandboxing but could be less expensive ". Skyhigh Security is most compared with Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Symantec Proxy, Zscaler CASB and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Zscaler Internet Access is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection. See our Skyhigh Security 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.