We compared Okta Workforce Identity and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Okta Workforce Identity is commended for its user-friendly interface, simple setup process, and strong integration capabilities. However, it lacks certain functionalities such as password vaulting management and could improve its customer support. On the other hand, Prisma Access is highly regarded for its extensive security features, accessibility for users, and ability to safeguard all types of app traffic. Nevertheless, it can be challenging to use and configure, and its pricing is considered relatively high.
"The solution so far has been very stable."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the integration with external websites one-factor authentication."
"The most valuable features of Okta Workforce Identity are MFA, and SSO, which have high security."
"The most valuable features depend on a customer's needs. Our customers generally find multi-factor authentication very useful."
"It has a wide range of MFA options. I prefer "Okta Verify" out of them all."
"Okta Workforce Identity is easy to use and has a lot of components."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"The most valuable feature in Okta Workforce Identity is the single sign-on, universal directory, and lifecycle management."
"The protection for web-based applications was helpful for my colleagues who didn't want a particular application on their devices. And the non-web access protection was more for our developers because they were writing and building code on their computers. Prisma Access was able to protect them."
"Prisma Access gives us security from a single point. It controls mobile users and determines how secure their networks will be, including from where they will get internet access. We can optimize things and add security profiles centrally."
"I like it because it's very easy to use. You install the client and you have to know your gateway, but that's something we give to our users. Beyond that, it takes about three seconds to train them on how to use it. And it just works well. That's great for us because it means less administrative time."
"Being able to use the user ID or Active Directory Group is one of the great features for control and providing more flexibility without worrying about IP addresses."
"The remediation process is easy compared to other platforms."
"The solution also provides traffic analysis, threat prevention, URL filtering, and segmentation. That combination is important because it enhances the protection and makes the traffic more secure. It also keeps things more up-to-date, enabling us to deal with more of the current threats."
"There is a system for monitoring the traffic. You can monitor the traffic of the connected people and point out any issues on the connection part."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to join your network and provide access through the VPN."
"The stability could be better."
"The solution should have greater on-premises availability, not just cloud and more package customization in its processing."
"The training is too costly."
"You can't hide the device when you're checking logs."
"The solution’s policies are difficult to understand due to the policy methods. They use authentication. The solution’s workflow is also difficult and not very active. They need to have proper documentation on it. In the next release, I would like to see the workflows being more digestible."
"The only aspect in which it can be improved is that the interface could be cleaner. I found this even when I was trying to do my certification exam because the certification is hands-on. You find yourself fumbling around a little bit to find simple things. This happens even when you start to get familiar with the product."
"Therefore, if you have 10 million users, that's almost 100 million, so it is costly."
"It would be pricing, which is a tough one because it goes against Microsoft. A lot of companies say they're a Microsoft partner, and they get all their software for free. Okta is like a luxury product, and it's not the most affordable one. I would say if they could work on pricing, it would help. Other than that, they've done great strides in developing a product that is really good. The companies that do see the value tend to invest in it."
"The tools' scalability is subject to some limitations when done on-premise due to the need for additional licenses. However, in other scenarios, increasing scalability involves expanding infrastructure to accommodate more third-party VPN access. It is scalable as long as you pay the money. Also, it needs to improve security."
"There is some particular traffic that the security team wants to filter out and apply their own policies and they cannot."
"The frequency of updates could be reduced."
"The BGP filtering options on Prisma Access should be improved."
"Prisma would be a stronger solution if it could aggregate resources by project or by application. So say we have an application we've developed in AWS and five applications we've developed in Azure. The platform will group it according to those applications, but it's based on the tags we use in Azure, which means I have to rely on development teams to tag resources properly."
"Though the monitoring is fine, the solution should improve its application graphs and interface monitoring."
"Dependencies of applications sometimes is a bit confusing."
"We are using the SaaS offering. We use our applications for microservices. We use Twistlock to scan containers, and it displays these results in Prisma, which is a good feature because we can see vulnerabilities with respect to these containers. We can see everything in a very detailed manner. However, when you have different environments for a single application, such as DEV, QA, PROD, and TEST, all these environments run multiple containers, which can lead to a very high number of containers. In such a scenario, it shows you the alerts for all those containers that have vulnerabilities. If you show the results of all the containers that share the same image, it is not going to add any value. Therefore, they should narrow down the alerts based on a container. It should show information for a single container. Otherwise, the person who is looking at the results gets the impression that he has to fix all these issues. This is something that they can improve."
More Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Okta Workforce Identity is ranked 6th in ZTNA as a Service with 58 reviews while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 2nd in ZTNA as a Service with 57 reviews. Okta Workforce Identity is rated 8.4, while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Okta Workforce Identity writes "Extremely easy to work with, simple to set up, and reasonably priced ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks writes "Integration with Palo Alto platforms such as Cortex Data Lake and Autofocus gives us visibility into our attack surface". Okta Workforce Identity is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Google Cloud Identity, SailPoint IdentityIQ, Saviynt and Auth0, whereas Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Netskope , Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access and Prisma SD-WAN. See our Okta Workforce Identity vs. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks 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.