We also evaluated Blue Coat. We have used Forcepoint too, but there were a lot of support challenges. That's why we went with Zscaler.

Back then, there weren't many other cloud-based solutions available. There were hybrid models, but we wanted a completely cloud-based solution. 

At the time, Symantec had the beginning of a cloud-based solution, but it was very immature and it didn't work as well as Zscaler. Zscaler had been around since around 2010 and was five years into their journey, while Symantec was only a year or two into their journey. We opted for the most mature at that time.

Since then, we have looked at other solutions, including Netskope and a few others. They are similar in their design, but Zscaler has features in its design that make it stand out from the competitors. For instance, their scanning methodology is something like, "Scan once, analyze many times." That means there is a one-time scan of the traffic, but with multiple different threat engines, for antivirus and anti-malware, et cetera. And they do it only in the RAM memory of their cloud solution machines, which makes it super-fast. They can scan a lot of traffic in a very short amount of time. That part is something that a lot of other vendors are not doing. They're scanning in sequence, not in parallel.

We evaluated several solutions.

We evaluated two or three different vendors, but finally selected Zscaler Internet Access due to its reputation. Also, the GUI for Zscaler Internet Access was very clear when we tested it.

Palo Alto's vulnerability assessment requires an on-prem solution to work with your cloud. Zscaler Internet Access has already been bundled up to provide no-hassle, free Internet network connectivity that ensures protection. When you are using Palo Alto and want to assess vulnerability in your network, you probably need to use on-prem and cloud workloads. There is no reason to do that with Zscaler Internet Access.

Zscaler Internet Access has ease of development, like minimal setups needed for connectivity. You can continue securing protection, allowing your remote users to have access to your applications. Then, it is pretty quick to set up for Zscaler Internet Access. Some companies don't have many tools, so there are no delays there. When it comes to LogRhythm, there are a lot of things that you have to deal with. You have to deal with your log server as well as setting up your authentication server, firewalls, policies, rules, and zones, then you need to get it running and customize it based on your company's needs. Because LogRhythm has 30-plus features ready to go, it can be easier and smoother to deploy. However, there will always be a couple things where you have to do some preliminary requirements before you continue.

yes, Umbrella, Forcepoint

We looked at Cisco Umbrella as an option. But because our organization is part of a corporation that was already using Zscaler, we're aligning ourselves with our headquarters' implementation by going with this solution.

We have looked into Netskope.

We did evaluate other solutions before choosing Zscaler Internet Access, such as Symantec.

We work with the customers that use a range of different types of proxy services. In my personal experience, I've only ever used Zscaler.

I wasn't involved in the decision-making process when it came to looking for a solution.

We have made comparisons to Palo Alto and Cisco Miraki.

We didn't have a similar solution. We had a solution, but we didn't have something cloud-based as a security solution, so I would say we did not use any cloud security-based system.

Our clients might evaluate other options, like iboss and Fortinet. We offer Zscaler.

It's an excellent product, and there's no need to worry about the hardware and maintenance cost.