Netskope Reviews

We use Netskope as a comprehensive security portfolio solution. It covers the CASB CSP. We have 300 end users in our company for this solution. We're customers of Netskope and I'm the regional IT security manager.

Valuable features of the solution are the KSP CASB and the DLP because we're not using the proxy or the web gateway. 

When we first deployed the solution we encountered some minor compatibility issues with another proxy polar, Bitscaler. It would play up and sometimes we'd get a blue screen. It was rare and the only issue we encountered with Netskope.

I would really like to see an improvement in compatibility with other platforms as it relates to issues as mentioned above. It would help to get rid of minor bugs and glitches. 

I've been using this solution for one and a half years.

This is a stable solution. 

The solution is not very scalable. Each time we need to get a new user on board to Netskope, we need to send the invitation from the portal. We need to have tools by SCCM or perhaps there's another window administration tool that I'm not aware of because I'm not the one deploying Netskope. It's still manageable in terms of getting a  new user onboard but could be easier.

The technical support is good but we pay for extended support and of course that's helpful. 

The initial setup is very easy and user friendly. You can set the profile database to see the scoring or the weighting of the security as it applies to Yahoo mail, Gmail, and Facebook, for example. Deployment time varies because we need to customize the policy for our to each cient. Deployment will probably average about a week. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

CASB: allows selective cloud service access, e.g., it allows our O365 tenant but prevents upload to other tenants.

It allows the use of cloud since we can control risks vs. just blocking access.

Tenant identification for cloud storage services.

Better debugging tools to identify operational concerns, e.g., "Netskope is slow", and the only way to prove it's not is to disable it — no data on time taken for different hops.

This mainly concerns the proxy level, with an emphasis on operational work rather than implementation. Forcepoint's implementation is completed.

Netskope's control is user-friendly and comprehensible. It also helps in conveying information effectively as a company, making it crucial for customer satisfaction. In essence, it is simple to grasp and facilitates consultant work.

In terms of improvements, enhancing support, particularly for OEM support with quicker response times would be beneficial. Additionally, incorporating an agent-based solution for endpoint DLP could be advantageous, as it's a trend seen in solutions like Forcepoint, where a single agent handles multiple tasks. By adding some features for Infant DLP, Netskope could attract more customers.

I have been working with Netskope for the past year and a half.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I'd rate the scalability an eight out of ten because there's a competing product to Cisco that might be necessary. Zscaler offers flexibility in working capabilities, especially during customer proof of concept management, though the chances of needing it are minor, around 2-3%. It's essential to consider usage details.

The main issue is convincing customers on the opposite side to switch to the rescheduled side. They need to work on ensuring that all the features provided in NetFlow are available to both end tenants and paid tenants.

They can be improved to be better. 

Neutral

The key factors for the switch are stability and user-friendliness. When providing the console to the customer's IT team or management, it should be straightforward to understand, handle, operate, and troubleshoot. However, in the case of Zscaler, while it is faster, its control interface can be a bit awkward.

The setup is easy and it is deployed on a hybrid basis. 

I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten. 

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten, with the only area for improvement being the network and endpoint aspects. Specifically, the development part for the endpoint needs work. When considering all the points mentioned earlier, I'd say it's an eight point five, which is acceptable.

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.

There is no real room for improvement that I can think of. Most of the features meet our requirements. I don't see anything that can be improved now. If something would need improvement I would offer the suggestion and I believe it would be taken care of.  

Support services could definitely be improved. Support is the one area that can always use improvement. It's an evolving thing, so based on demand and based on market requirement and the way market is moving towards.

I have been using Netskope for one year. 

It's quite stable. As of now, we haven't had any kinds of bugs or anything within our environment.

It's scalable. We have around 500 users using it at my company. 

Technical support is good. 

The initial setup was straight forward. 

I would recommend it. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

Netskope is a one-platform security product that provides security functions. It is the most advantageous product in the Japanese market.

Technical support and the user interface could be improved.

I have been using Netskope for two or three years.

The product is stable.

The response time of customer support could be better.

Positive

The initial setup varies depending on the customer's needs.

I recommend the solution to bigger companies. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature for us is the 360-degree visibility it provides. Now I have the ability to see what’s coming and going in the organization from a cloud application perspective. I had no visibility into that whatsoever and with this now I can see what’s coming, what’s going. The ability to see our apps compare multiple apps that are the same time, for example, like Box and Dropbox, I can actually compare them to see which is a better fit. I can see uptimes and I can assess risk to them based on things that are important to us and not just the industry.

It’s very adjustable to the things that I want, which might be different than the things that you want and different than things that other companies want. For us being a company that deals with patient data, you can imagine that it's really important to us that we have a company that’s got, for example, a SOX certification. If you are a company that doesn’t view all that kind of sensitive data, you don’t really care. In just seconds I can go on to Netskope and see exactly what the situation is.

It gives us visibility. When we saw how many applications that we had, there was a huge gap between what we thought we had and what we were actually using.

I'd like to have slider bars that allow you to adjust the tool to your risk appetite. For example, we're able to adjust the bar to select the five "must have" vendors so that they're accessible based on the stock report as "must haves". I'd like this functionality to allow us to adjust the products based on our standard contract language. For example, we use Salesforce and we use Box.com, and it would be great if I can go on there and say, Salesforce or Box we have a negotiated uptime of 99.5%. That way when their tool sees that Box is not available for whatever reason and it’s not on us, it can send us a flag saying, “Over this last quarter we’ve recorded Box not being available two percent of the time, which has dropped their availability below the 99.5% threshold that you’ve configured, and therefore you might want to reach out to that.” That would be fantastic.

One of the things that we are starting to do more and more of is have direct connection to our vendors through our data centers. I’m not exactly sure how they integrate when that happens. This is just an open question, there is no answer, there is no right or wrong here. It’s something that I’m interested in knowing.

I would say the other piece that I would like is reporting. In the past, I’ve been able to compare multiple vendors, so I could compare Dropbox to Box to Office365 storage. I haven’t been able to export that data out of the tool in the same way that I view it in the portal. The business units that are coming and saying “Hey, we are looking at a whatever tool and these are the three products that we are looking at, can you give me a report of them?” It’s this process of sort of explosion. We didn’t expect to find the tool useful in this particular area, but we’re seeing this a lot. When I show them what I can do on the screen, they love it, but when I go to print it looks different. That’s something I’d really to see change.

I've been using it for two years now.

It's been 100% stable. We’ve never had a glitch with it.

I don’t have a good answer for you beyond what we have set up. We have a major office in the San Francisco Bay Area. We have an office in Geneva and we have some other data centers scattered throughout the world, some smaller offices. We are able to cover them with really no issues whatsoever. I have zero concerns that this product is not going to meet our needs as we continue to grow.

They've been both knowledgeable and proactive, and that's why we bought Netskope. I really like the fact that I can pick up the phone and call Netskope and get someone on the line that’s going to have an interest in my issue.

We were not using anything before. We recognized that the whole cloud space and cloud applications was a major hole which we assumed was a massive vulnerability for us, and sure enough it was. I mean there was hundreds of applications we didn’t even know the company was using. We identified this as a big blind spot and we were able remediate it.

We did everything in-house and it was really smooth and simple. We didn’t do blocking right away. We turned it on just to gather intelligence about the organization. Who is using what? How are they using it? Then we gradually moved into blocking or coaching or diverting, etc.

Do not be surprised by the results. Do not jump off the cliff when you get that first report because I haven’t talked to anybody that’s deployed this product or even a similar competitive product that was not surprised by the result.

Do not try and eat the cow in one bite. Take it slow and steady because if you try and turn it on and immediately it impacts the end user, you’re probably not going to be successful. There is a little bit of a learning curve and you could block everything. If you try to drink from the fire hose, you just can’t do it.

Give yourself some time as you buy it and deploy it to get acclimated to it. Do take baby steps and I think that you’ll find that you’ll actually get the implementation done quicker doing that than if you try to just turn it on.

For a secured web gateway in my company, everything revolves around Netskope CASB and Netskope DLP. I mostly use the tool for cloud access and to ensure a secure web gateway.

The most valuable feature of the product stems from the fact that there is a list of all Netskope POPs, which is the point of presence spread throughout the world. When you work on the backbone of the tool, you can break out, meaning you don't have to come back to your original service provider and then go to your new service provider to use the tool on the internet. If I am in the US or the UK, I can break out at that POP when using Netskope, so I don't need to come back onto my network and go back through my network again to access the product.

The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required.

Netskope is a good product. The tool has a whole new list of features that have come out now, but I have not checked them out.

The product's reporting capabilities have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required.

The solution's technical support response time is an area that needs to be improved.

I have been using Netskope for seven years. I don't use the product for my customers.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The uptime offered by the solution is around 99.99 percent.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product is mostly used in medium to enterprise-sized organizations.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was simple since a user basically just needs an agent to be rolled out.

The solution can be deployed very quickly. It may take you a bit of time to set up the rules, but the rollout of the product to its customers is very quick.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud.

It is an expensive solution.

The customers' budget may influence whether they would choose Palo Alto Networks, Palo Alto Networks K2-Series, or Netskope. I think Palo Alto Networks focuses on offering a bit more enterprise-oriented products, and I would probably also go with medium-sized companies since it is easier to administer than Netskope. Netskope and Palo Alto Networks offer the same functionalities, and it is all about support and implementation.

Palo Alto Networks has more integrations with other products, meaning it has a bigger integration stack with other products, which Netskope doesn't offer. With Palo Alto Networks, I can use EDR and all of its other tools, which Netskope doesn't offer. If I look at things from a consolidated view and consider my customer's requirements in terms of price and cost, then Palo Alto Networks would probably be preferable over Netskope.

It is possible to organize a secured web gateway with the use of Netskope.

In terms of the most efficient real-time data protection related to Netskope, it is possible for users to set up DLP rules in real time.

I have experience with Netskope's analytics and reporting capabilities. The product's analytics part is pretty fine.

I rate the overall product a seven and a half to eight out of ten.

As a worker located in a remote location, accessing office information securely is crucial. To facilitate this, we utilize Netskope.

The most valuable feature of Netskope is protection.

The CSPM model needs to improve.

I have been using Netskope for approximately two years.

Netskope is reliable.

I rate the stability of Netskope a ten out of ten.

The solution is highly scalable and there is very low latency. 

I rate the scalability of Netskope a ten out of ten.

The support is good. They provide support in English and Portuguese.

The implementation of Netskope was straightforward.

I have received a high ROI using the solution.

The price is in the middle range compared to other solutions.

I rate the price of Netskope a five out of five.

I recommend Netskope if it fits the customer's use case.

I rate Netskope a nine out of ten.