We performed a comparison between Netskope and Saviynt based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Saviynt has more comprehensive features than Netskope, including backflow handling, certification features, and global third-party user management. Saviynt also has an intuitive UI, in-depth identity knowledge, and report generation features. However, Saviynt's technical support and licensing costs need improvement. Netskope is praised for its protection features and better client size and architectural components, and ability to work with instance IDs in Azure. Netskope's technical support is generally good, and the initial setup is easy. However, Netskope needs better integration with other solutions, improved support services, and more visibility on the reporting side.
"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 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."
"Their technical support is very good."
"The feature that I like best is the GUI."
"The most valuable features were related to discovery, data protection, and ensuring compliance with regulations."
"Technical support is pretty good."
"Netskope is a really good product. I cannot segregate which features are the most valuable. We find most of the features to be valuable. It gives us what we are looking for."
"Netskope has a diverse portfolio range, which includes cloud access security brokers, content filtering, behavior analytics, and security management."
"It's a comprehensive security portfolio solution."
"The product's analytics part is pretty fine."
"We have found the implementation process to be very easy."
"Considering the initial cost and the basic features, this is a good solution that provides integration with both on-premise and cloud applications."
"The workflow in Saviynt is easier compared to other tools. It's pretty straightforward."
"Some of the self-service capabilities are quite powerful."
"The dedicated Freshdesk platform is a user community and a step in the right direction for offering learning resources."
"The repository has many features where you can define primary and secondary owners."
"Saviynt has a lot of potential with many features available for users."
"The feature that we use the most is the global, third-party user management."
"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."
"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."
"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"
"There should be some granular custom roles that are not available. However, this is on the road map. There are many devices that do not have the Zero Trust feature and other enhancements available which they should have."
"Technical support and the user interface could be improved."
"In terms of improvements, enhancing support, particularly for OEM support with quicker response times would be beneficial."
"The CSPM model needs to improve."
"The configuration and user behaviour analytics can be improved."
"Compatibility with other proxy polars would be helpful."
"The solution's implementations can be made much easier because, currently, it is complex in nature."
"I would like to have an identity theft protection function."
"The tool is difficult to migrate."
"An area for improvement in Saviynt is that there's a limitation on the number of logs you can get from the past twenty-four hours. For example, if the data is huge, the tool can only give you a maximum of one hundred logs. You can't get any further than that. In the next version of Saviynt, however, you can get more logs and you'll see them inside the log rotation. For example, when you're trying to search inside the log, you can select a date range, and then you can search for a particular log. We haven't used that new log rotation feature yet, but it's included in the next release of Saviynt. Another area for improvement in the tool is that it doesn't have a server monitoring feature, so if your server has a high load, it should give you a warning. You're supposed to get an alert similar to what's being done in WebLogic. In WebLogic, we had a separate facility, but in Saviynt, that feature's missing."
"UI and support could be improved. The frequent updates and version changes can be disruptive for large organizations. Not every month, a large organization can go with the changes. Saviynt needs to consider this carefully."
"It is time-consuming to troubleshoot issues."
"Saviynt cannot customize based on customer needs."
"The solution is hosted on AWS cloud, and there is some dependency that affects our bottom line."
"The main difficulty was the integration process itself. But we were able to kind of work through it and fix it. We tried integrating with our HR system and other IBM solutions, like Microsoft Identity Management."
"According to feedback I've received, some users prefer SailPoint over Saviynt in real complex environments. SailPoint has its provisioning platform. Complex integrations may pose challenges in scenarios like a large bank with thousands of users, making SailPoint a preferred choice for some."
Netskope is ranked 4th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 35 reviews while Saviynt is ranked 7th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 20 reviews. Netskope is rated 8.4, while Saviynt is rated 7.4. 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 Saviynt writes "Offers a good alerting system and integrates with SIEM solutions but main difficulty was the integration process". Netskope is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Cisco Umbrella and Skyhigh Security, whereas Saviynt is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Microsoft Entra ID, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Okta Workforce Identity and Microsoft Identity Manager. See our Netskope vs. Saviynt 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.
