Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Reviews

I've focused on basic Zscaler Private Access policies, primarily when users are working remotely.

I also use the solution for browser access, which means giving access to clientless machines.

Privileged remote access is another use case for Zscaler Private Access.

I also use the solution for its log streaming service and source IP anchoring.

I find all Zscaler Private Access features valuable because each replaces flawed technologies, such as EPAs being replacements for VPN and PR as a replacement for PAM, so I can't mention only one valuable feature. Overall, Zscaler Private Access is a good solution.

Everything looks good in Zscaler Private Access, but the issue my team faced with it was the inability to find subscriptions on the portal. That caused some difficulties, so it would be better if the Zscaler team made it easier for people to find subscriptions on the portal, mainly information on what my customers subscribed to or the type of licenses purchased.

I've been working with Zscaler Private Access for one year.

Zscaler Private Access is pretty stable.

Zscaler Private Access is a scalable solution.

Primarily for Zscaler Private Access, I only require ten percent technical support if the architecture is complex or if there is some restriction while reading the logs. I've contacted the technical support team, and I didn't face any issues with support.

I used Symantec before using Zscaler Private Access, and I switched from Symantec to Zscaler because my company switched.

Zscaler Private Access can be complex because you first need to understand how application segments work. You'll also need to understand server service, app connector groups, and deploying an app connector. The connection between all the components can be confusing, but it's only for first-time deployment, so overall, it is okay. Later on, you only have to troubleshoot the policy side.

Setting up Zscaler Private Access can be confusing.

Deploying the solution could take one day.

I did the deployment for Zscaler Private Access, an in-house deployment.

My company is a Zscaler Private Access partner, so the customers pay for the license fees.

I deployed a project with eight thousand Zscaler Private Access users, but apart from that, I've given support to other projects with fifty thousand users of the solution.

There's no plan to increase the number of users for Zscaler Private Access.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

My rating for Zscaler Private Access is eight out of ten.

Zscaler Private Access is mainly used for connecting to my company network through a VPN. It's used for remote work.

What I find most valuable in Zscaler Private Access is that it's a VPN. Its connectivity as a VPN is its most valuable feature.

What could be improved in Zscaler Private Access is its notification. For example, if there's a speed issue, there should be a pop-up that alerts the user about it. If there is a network quality issue, for example, it isn't good enough to connect to, or the network quality is bad, there should be a notification from the solution.

Zscaler Private Access also needs improvement in terms of its interface and security.

I've been using Zscaler Private Access for more than two years now.

Zscaler Private Access is a stable product.

In terms of the technical support for Zscaler Private Access, I didn't need any support yet, and I haven't spoken with the support team, so I can't rate them for now. I also have not heard anything about support from my colleagues or the IT team.

I haven't used other VPN solutions apart from Zscaler Private Access.

The initial setup for Zscaler Private Access was easy. It was a hassle-free setup. It took just a few minutes and I didn't even notice when the IT team installed it.

Zscaler Private Access was implemented in-house. It was done by our IT team.

Pricing for Zscaler Private Access is moderate. It's acceptable, though I can't give you the exact price currently. It's not too expensive, and on a scale of one to five, I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing.

I'm using Zscaler Private Access daily for eight to twelve hours.

More than five thousand people use the solution in my company.

I would rate Zscaler Private Access eight out of ten. Other products are more efficient and better than Zscaler Private Access, particularly in terms of interface and security, so I'm unable to give the solution a perfect score.

I don't know if my company is a partner of Zscaler Private Access, but I'm sure that it is a customer.

With Private Access, from TCS, we used to support multiple customers. Some of our customers will be utilizing Private Access and we'll be supporting them. 

Mainly due to the COVID pandemic situation, many people now work from home. When working from home they needed better connectivity for a VPN solution. That is the main criteria and customers are looking for a stable solution, a cloud-based solution, which can be integrated quickly and can be managed centrally. That is the driving point. The pandemic situation was the driver, as clients needed to add capacity also. Earlier, they would give this remote access solution only to a few people. Now nearly 90% of people work from home. The capacity has to be increased. For that, clients were looking for a multi-net solution and they started deploying Private Access.

The VPN is great for the stability on offer and for the cloud updates and insights you can get. We can protect the application well. There's no need to broadcast my network. Only the application will be visible, those kinds of things are very salient features.

The pricing is good as far as I know, although I don't have an idea of the exact pricing.

It offers great user-friendliness.

We like the customization capabilities.

It's straightforward to set up.

The scalability is good.

So far, we are happy with the solution. I can't speak to any missing features. Based on the customer feedback, they're doing good. We don't see any negative point at this point in time.

I've been using this solution for nearly three or four years. Some of our clients just started using the solution for one year.

The solution is scalable and expands well. 

I don't directly deal with technical support. 

Earlier, we used to stick with on-prem solutions, and compared to on-prem, we are leveraging all the cloud benefits. With this product, the updates and signatures will be there, live updates will be there, et cetera. We don't have to worry about all those updates from a Private Access point of view. From a security perspective, you're adding a lot of security to the VPN solution. Everything is fine.

I'm not involved in the initial setup. My job is to recommend the solution and another team will be doing the setup. We're a larger organization, so there are different teams that work with customers and provide solutions.

That said, my understanding is that the initial setup is very straightforward. 

The client needs to be deployed to the user machine. That typically is done with the Active Directory integration. If you are going to deploy it for multiple people, we need to deploy it, we need to push it using AD group policy or any other software distribution.  Other than that, it is easy only to deploy. We don't see much difficulty.

If we win that proposal, definitely our team will be involved in helping with the setup. 

I cannot speak to the exact licensing costs. 

We don't see any other, private, cloud-based VPN solution. There might be others, like Prisma, and there are so many solutions also coming out. Other than that, we are ready to explore new products. However, so far, whatever we have used within the Zscaler solution is doing good.

I work for a consultancy. My customers are manufacturing customers.

We recommend the solution to customers looking for a kind of non-cloud-based VPN solution.

Typically we will use the latest version of the solution. 

While there are so many customers still having on-premise solutions, we would definitely suggest cloud-based solutions and Zscaler would be in the top three we would recommend.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I mainly use SASE for proxy and content filtering.

SASE's most valuable features are proxy and content filtering.

An area for improvement would be the ease of configuration.

I've been using Zscaler SASE for two to three years.

SASE is stable.

SASE is scalable if users need to increase the network it supports - it's quite transparent from the end-user perspective.

Zscaler's technical support is quite good.

Positive

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

I would advise those thinking of implementing SASE to ensure that their technical requirements are well-established and that the transition process is understood. I would give SASE a rating of nine out of ten.

Private Access is more for very high-powered users. It's dedicated access to certain applications. It's for more sensitive users. It's not for general users. 

The dedicated connection is the most valuable aspect of this solution. It makes the connection very secure. 

It is easy to use. 

The setup is very straightforward. 

We'd like to have two-factor authentication that is quite simple.

Users are only those at the management level or directors. The users are only high-level individuals. It's not meant for everyone. 

We previously just used an antivirus like McAfee. We use McAfee endpoint protection with this over the top now. 

This solution is very simple to set up. It's not a complex implementation. 

You just need one person to maintain the solution. It just takes one system administrator. 

The pricing is incremental. It's just a small incremental cost for each user. You do need at least 500 users. Otherwise, it is not cost-efficient. 

We're partners. We resell the solution. 

This is a good product. It's easy to deploy, secure, and good for securing employees. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case of this product is as a VPN solution. I'm the head of IT infrastructure and we're a customer of Zscaler. 

The ZPA is a unique feature which offers VPN along with all the additional security we need while using the VPN network. This is a cloud solution and it has all the features inbuilt for all security requirements. The other big advantage is that it doesn't require you to sign in every time like typical VPN connections. Usually, whenever you want to connect to VPN, you need to open the VPN, sign in and authenticate with your multi-factor authentication. With this solution, you open your laptop and you are connected to your VPN. Authentication is required about once a week and that's it. 

This is a great solution, I'm just searching for an alternative because the costing or the commercials for this type of solution tends to be a little high, although we have been using it for a year already. We've found it to be more expensive than other products. However, we also know that unlike other VPN solutions, this one has many features that any organization would like to have. We're looking for an alternative product that offers similar services or features.

I've been using this solution for a year. 

This is a very good and stable solution that has all the requirements for your security solutions. If you have this, you don't need any other services or any other security solutions in your data center or on your premises other than this. It's a one-stop shop.

I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

I like its ease of use. It has a single pane of glass for the ZIA and ZPA pieces. It is very manageable. 

It is also very easy to deploy for secure access, and it gives half-decent coverage for visibility in terms of what the users use and what data is being proxied through the access gateway.

It has massive room for improvement. The Zscaler product itself is okay, but it doesn't give enough granularity for us as an organization to stipulate rules or processes, especially for data-driven services. For instance, we can stick on SSL inspection, but it's just a click box. It doesn't allow us to go any further into the detail of the SSL inspection. We also can't pull it out without having an additional logging server. It just doesn't give us enough granularity. 

They should give us more control over the interfaces because it is all backend. They weren't very open to discussing their backend architecture with us in terms of their own data centers. They can maybe a little bit more open about what components are there and how the backend infrastructure works alongside Zscaler.

Its licensing can be better. Some of the additional licensing costs are quite high, and they should have certain features ready and available as a baseline rather than having to purchase additional licenses for it. 

Their support should also be improved. I initially had a consultant from Zscaler for its deployment, but the support that I had throughout the deployment of the project wasn't the best.

We weren't using any other solution.

It is very easy. There were some constraints trying to deploy the access gateway and the endpoint client to some of our regions due to processes being blocked. They gave a list of processes that need to be allowed through ADM endpoints and our sort of antivirus products so that they're not scanned, and they're allowed through to function. However, I had some issues in following the guide and trying to get them initially deployed and allowed through. The firewall has to be off regardless of whether the port allocations were opened or not, but this could potentially be a regional issue. Other than that, the deployment was very easy.

I went through a subsidiary company of Zscaler. I initially had a consultant from Zscaler themselves, but the support that I had throughout the deployment of the project wasn't the best. They were very much technical sales as opposed to technical consultants. I myself had to work through and resolve a lot of issues that I faced during the deployment and setup.

It has been relatively reasonable for what it does. Some of the additional license costs based on the advanced next-generation firewall functions are quite high, and they should have certain features ready and available as a baseline rather than having to purchase additional licenses for it. Overall, the cost seems reasonable.

What I would say is that try it, test it, and ensure that it sort of meets the company requirements. We were lucky enough to go through an extensive trial period. Zscaler, unfortunately, only allows a two-week trial regardless of where you are with the setup. They only give you coverage for a very basic setup. You have very limited time for trying anything further or trying the product as if it was in the production environment. Therefore, I would advise scoping out what you want and how you want to achieve it as quickly as possible. After that, you can really hammer home when you go through the initial deployment to ensure that it works and meets all the requirements.

We are now looking at Cisco Umbrella. We are a Cisco house predominantly, and Cisco Umbrella just interlinks with our VPN solution and our overall architecture. We're looking to migrate to a Meraki SD-WAN fabric because it allows us to just use that network overlay underneath the secure access edge and just incorporate it into what we already have.

I would rate Zscaler SASE a seven out of ten.

We are using it for monitoring the global areas, which Zscaler considers for people who are roaming around the system to have a secure connection to internal applications.

It has made things easier and more secure while connecting to the client's private applications.

The most valuable feature is the manageability of the micro tunnels.

There is improvement in enhancing proper manageability, policies, and logs. So, log management could be improved.

Moreover, I'd just like to see an improvement in stability.

I have been using this solution for six months. We use the latest version 6.1. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

Scalability is good. 

The setup is straightforward, but it's a little more technical. Nevertheless, it's pretty straightforward.

We have it deployed on both cloud and on-premises.

We have definitely seen an ROI. 

Overall, I'll rate it at nine out of ten.