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 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."
"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."
"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."
"Netskope is an efficient, reliable, and easy-to-manage solution."
"The feature that I like best is the GUI."
"Netskope has a diverse portfolio range, which includes cloud access security brokers, content filtering, behavior analytics, and security management."
"A feature that was valuable was the built-in website classification or safety ratings. Different websites would be rated according to analyses that the Netskope team had done, and we built policies on some of those scores. If the website scored less than a certain percentage, then we would have a different user experience around how the site would interact with the clients."
"It has hundreds of features and many of them are useful."
"The automation offered by the product is pretty solid."
"The most useful feature of this solution is Cloud Control, which allows me to schedule cloud uploads."
"Its deployment is very easy and quick. Their technical support is also very good."
"The solution has all its capabilities in a single cloud delivery platform which is great and it provides overall good protection."
"The tool's consolidation is pretty quick."
"It's much faster and more secure than legacy solutions. It is also quite stable and scalable as well. We are able to see all the traffic in one place."
"Its hands-off security and the fact that we don't have to maintain it are the most valuable features."
"Prisma helped us build a moat around our production systems. It's now impossible to log into our production from a non-MDM laptop. Prisma Access provides decent security overall."
"The most valuable feature of Prisma Cloud-native, in my opinion, is that it assists in identifying, analyzing, and remediating vulnerabilities."
"The users can securely access any cloud data centers or cloud platforms. In terms of the features, it has all the features that Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall has. It is also very stable and scalable."
"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."
"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."
"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"
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"They could improve their mobile agents as they have some limitations."
"The CSPM model needs to improve."
"In some cases, when you have a lot of policies, it can get confusing for users and you can get lost in the GUI."
"There could be room for improvement in the subscription process."
"The solution's documentation still needs to be improved."
"The solution's implementations can be made much easier because, currently, it is complex in nature."
"Deployment and policy tweaking were two areas where improvement needs to be made."
"It's not very easy to use. Sometimes it's buggy and there are problems when doing updates. The user interface is okay, but some configuration items are difficult. I would like it to be less buggy and easier to configure, to better streamline the user experience."
"Sometimes, you have these notifications sent out about changes in App-IDs, modifications in App-IDs, or even the introduction of entirely new App-IDs to replace. Sometimes, the recommendations are followed, but even then, when the package is installed on the firewall, it gets messed up. I remember a particular one was with Tableau, and suddenly, people weren't able to use Tableau, which is an analytics tool for business."
"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."
"The BGP filtering options on Prisma Access should be improved."
"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."
"When it comes to integration mechanisms, Prisma SaaS does not support reverse proxy type of integrations."
"One thing that would help is if we could get a guide. With Cisco, for example, you can just type the problem regarding your Cisco product and you will easily get your solution. In Palo Alto, however, it's not easy to find the solutions."
"The documentation is generally good, but they could provide a more detailed description of all the configuration steps. I have to search for information or call support. Palo Alto could add more knowledge base articles about configuration with screenshots and walkthroughs. That would be helpful. When configuring a product, you want to see examples of how it is done."
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 55 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.
