We performed a comparison between Akamai Enterprise Application Access and Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"Application Access's most valuable feature is the accessibility of enterprise tech protection."
"The capability of Akamai Enterprise Application Access is what you're looking for, it's giving you the service that you're looking for. It's simple and doesn't use an agent. It uses LCSD responders, and they have a lot of services around the globe. That's the reason that we were very interested in using it because it has a lot of coverage. This is because it's under the GDS umbrella."
"The solution is very convenient and stable because you don't have to worry about attacks to public IPs or public networks."
"From stability and availability standpoints, it is pretty good."
"The quarantine feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The tool's most valuable feature is reporting. It helps us understand what's going on in our environment."
"The product is stable."
"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."
"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"
"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 solution has two agents so should combine its enterprise application and security access into one agent."
"We need another approach to bring the solution to the cloud. In addition to Access Management, we would like to see if we can jump into Directories. I think ADs are going to go away and everything is going to be cloud-based and minimize the use of ADs because of the cost and some other dependencies to the cloud. Every time you buy AD it is more hardware, and everything's changing to software. The network's changing, the applications are changing, and for IT it is hard to keep up with it."
"The technical enablement sessions are quite limited, and Akamai could help by providing more of them."
"Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker should be cheaper."
"They are priced significantly higher and less cost-effective than alternative options."
"I think some of the hiccups that we had were with the number of domains that we had and how that had to be implemented in Proofpoint."
"The TLS encryption needs to be improved. It's not state of the art."
More Akamai Enterprise Application Access Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Enterprise Application Access is ranked 15th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 3 reviews while Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is ranked 14th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 4 reviews. Akamai Enterprise Application Access is rated 9.0, while Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Enterprise Application Access writes "Very scalable, convenient, and stable protection against attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker writes "A highly stable spam filtering solution that can be managed and used by a large number of users". Akamai Enterprise Application Access is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Zscaler Private Access, Appgate SDP, Netskope and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Skyhigh Security and Zscaler Internet Access. See our Akamai Enterprise Application Access vs. Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker report.
See our list of best Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) 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.