We compared Netskope and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks based on our users' reviews across four parameters. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Users prefer Netskope for its advanced analytics and granular policy enforcement, while Prisma Access may be a better choice for its scalability and ease of use. Users praise Netskope for its comprehensive data protection capabilities, advanced analytics, and granular policy enforcement. However, they have expressed a desire for a more intuitive interface, better customer support, improved performance during high-traffic periods, and more comprehensive reporting capabilities. Users appreciate Prisma Access for its ease of use, scalability, and flexibility but have concerns about speed and performance, compatibility with certain applications and platforms, and customer support.
Features: Netskope offers comprehensive data protection, advanced threat protection, advanced analytics, and granular policy enforcement. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks focuses on robust security measures, advanced threat prevention, secure connectivity, scalability, and flexibility.
Pricing and ROI: Netskope is praised for its competitive pricing options and straightforward setup process, ensuring a smooth customer experience. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is affordable and provides good value for money. The setup cost is reasonable, and the licensing process is user-friendly for both products. Netskope users reported significant value and cost savings, emphasizing its effectiveness in data protection. Prisma Access users also experienced positive results, indicating a significant ROI.
Room for Improvement: Netskope could improve its interface, customer support, performance during high-traffic periods, and reporting capabilities. Prisma Access could enhance its speed and performance, compatibility with certain applications and platforms, and customer support.
Deployment and customer support: Some Netskope users found the initial setup to be simple and quick, as it only involves rolling out an agent and can be deployed on the cloud. However, others mentioned that the implementation phase can be complex and time-consuming, requiring coordination and effort. The deployment process was generally considered easy, especially for those with a networking background. Palo Alto Networks has a setup that varies in terms of ease and complexity. Some users found the initial setup to be straightforward, while others mentioned it was more complex and required help from Palo Alto or a partner. The deployment durations range from a few hours to several months, depending on factors such as the size of the environment and the number of branch offices. Users praise Netskope for their knowledge and expertise in addressing queries and concerns, emphasizing the excellent level of assistance received. Prisma Access received positive feedback for its knowledgeable and friendly staff, who efficiently address concerns and provide valuable guidance.
The summary above is based on 38 interviews we conducted with Netskope and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"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."
"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."
"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 of the solution are that the support is very good and the dashboards are easy and intuitive to use."
"The detection capability is very nice and lightweight."
"Its deployment is very easy and quick. Their technical support is also very good."
"Amazing reporting and tracking mechanisms."
"The solution offers a better understanding of the real scenario and identifies the cloud apps that are being utilized."
"It is a very scalable tool."
"A very straightforward interface."
"I have found the most useful features to be the Web Secure Gateway, CASB, infrastructural service scanning, and Zero Trust."
"This solution provides a DLP on the cloud and very few people have a scanning device for data at rest."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to join your network and provide access through the VPN."
"Monitoring is the most valuable feature because we can easily monitor all kinds of stuff coming over the network. We can check the dashboard and work accordingly."
"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."
"Prisma SaaS is very easy to use; it's common sense — it's the best-in-class."
"It is easy to use, easy to integrate, and is stable. It's scalable as well."
"The tool's consolidation is pretty quick."
"Its hands-off security and the fact that we don't have to maintain it are the most valuable features."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"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"
"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."
"Technical support and the user interface could be improved."
"They can focus more on ease of admin, ease of use, and ease of migration. Migration should be simple for companies that are using a different platform and would like to move to Netskope. Everyone looks for a simple migration. They can also focus more on cloud services and cloud trends. They have to see the cloud market, and they should try to compete with Zscaler and other players. They should also work on licensing costs."
"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Deployment and policy tweaking were two areas where improvement needs to be made."
"They could add endpoint security features."
"It should have user behavior analysis and diverse analysis."
"The solution's documentation still needs to be improved."
"There could be room for improvement in the subscription process."
"Better integration with the MDM solution would be useful."
"Its integration with non-Palo Alto products can be improved. Currently, it is easy to integrate it with other Palo Alto products such as Cortex XDR. It integrates well with other Palo Alto products. A major part of our network is based on Palo Alto products, but for those companies that use multi-vendor products in their infrastructure, Palo Alto should optimize the integration of Prisma Access with the network devices from other vendors."
"We would like to see improvements in the licensing; currently, Palo Alto provides 500 to 1000 licenses for users, and we want to see 1500 to 2000 licenses for one version."
"The one thing that I've been a little bit disappointed with is when we have had to open cases with Palo Alto about Prisma Access issues. Versus their other platforms, like their firewalls, where we tend to get really quick responses and very definitive answers, the few tickets I've had to open for Prisma Access have taken them longer to respond to. And they haven't necessarily given me the kind of answer I was looking for, meaning a fix to the problem."
"Their next release should provide solutions for the mobile environment."
"When it comes to integration mechanisms, Prisma SaaS does not support reverse proxy type of integrations."
"The BGP filtering options on Prisma Access should be improved."
"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."
More Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Netskope is ranked 4th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 35 reviews while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 3rd in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 56 reviews. Netskope is rated 8.4, while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Netskope writes "Network proxy that provides visibility during deployment and allows you to control PII". 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". Netskope is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Cisco Umbrella, Skyhigh Security and Cato SASE Cloud Platform, whereas Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, Prisma SD-WAN and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps. See our Netskope vs. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks report.
See our list of best Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) vendors and best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) 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.