We looked into Prisma Access before choosing Zscaler Private Access (ZPA). Palo Alto’s Prisma Access is a secure access service edge (SASE) designed to deliver network security in a cloud-delivered infrastructure. One of the advantages of Prisma Access is its vast network, with over 100 locations worldwide. We liked that it is customizable, and you can manage your security policies with dedicated cloud instances.
Prisma Access’s features stack is similar to other perimeter firewalls, including SSL encryption/decryption, data loss prevention security, and sandbox. It simplifies work between branches via the Prisma Cloud, so it’s better suited for large enterprises. It also provides encrypted traffic flow between branches. However, it won’t work well with remote workforces because it creates network latency.
ZScaler (ZPA) was a better fit for us because of its zero-trust approach. ZPA is user- and application-centric and creates a segment for each user. Therefore, only authorized users have access to private applications. We like that it is easy to use - for example, connecting to the Internet via a VPN. It secures the data, restricts access to non-secure websites, and adds a layer of security when connecting to the internet.
It works well for a small company or remote workforces. The downside is that ZPA doesn’t let you see private IPs, which is more difficult for IT admins. Also, sometimes it can block third-party services.
Conclusions
ZScaler Private Access is a good solution for companies that want to deploy zero-trust architecture. It is better suited for companies that have adopted a remote workforce model, and for small and medium businesses. Prisma Access, in my opinion, works better for large companies and enterprises.
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.
We looked into Prisma Access before choosing Zscaler Private Access (ZPA). Palo Alto’s Prisma Access is a secure access service edge (SASE) designed to deliver network security in a cloud-delivered infrastructure. One of the advantages of Prisma Access is its vast network, with over 100 locations worldwide. We liked that it is customizable, and you can manage your security policies with dedicated cloud instances.
Prisma Access’s features stack is similar to other perimeter firewalls, including SSL encryption/decryption, data loss prevention security, and sandbox. It simplifies work between branches via the Prisma Cloud, so it’s better suited for large enterprises. It also provides encrypted traffic flow between branches. However, it won’t work well with remote workforces because it creates network latency.
ZScaler (ZPA) was a better fit for us because of its zero-trust approach. ZPA is user- and application-centric and creates a segment for each user. Therefore, only authorized users have access to private applications. We like that it is easy to use - for example, connecting to the Internet via a VPN. It secures the data, restricts access to non-secure websites, and adds a layer of security when connecting to the internet.
It works well for a small company or remote workforces. The downside is that ZPA doesn’t let you see private IPs, which is more difficult for IT admins. Also, sometimes it can block third-party services.
Conclusions
ZScaler Private Access is a good solution for companies that want to deploy zero-trust architecture. It is better suited for companies that have adopted a remote workforce model, and for small and medium businesses. Prisma Access, in my opinion, works better for large companies and enterprises.