Netskope Private Access vs Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange comparison

"It is a stable solution."

"The base features have been fantastic. The ability to be able to granularly assign application access to end-users has been really good."

"Netskope enables users to securely access private applications remotely without a VPN."

"With private access or next-gen VPN, they are able to keep you secure, but they are invisible in terms of how they do it. Anybody working from home and trying to bring up VPN quickly can pretty much get VPN up and running in a matter of minutes because this doesn't require any VPN technology on-prem. All the VPN technologies that you're using to access applications on-premise can be eliminated by using their software. If you're accessing Microsoft 365 or salesforce.com, you can go straight out from your home office or home internet to that application rather than having to come through a VPN. It still has all the policies enforced, and it mitigates any business risks in terms of how that user is accessing that application and what they're doing inside of it. VPN piece is really critical, especially at this time of Covid, and your latency also goes down. Your latency gets better by using the platform because they're intercepting your traffic, routing it through their local data center, and then sending it to whichever SaaS service or whatever you're going to. It does it better, faster, and quicker with all your governance policies enforced, rather than you having to go through your data center. So, all the traffic gets hauls there, and then that traffic has got to route somewhere else, and then it has got to go up to the cloud. Your latency actually goes down. They can guarantee 15 milliseconds or less pretty much across anywhere on the planet for about 95% or 90% of it."

"Even without extensive training, if you're a proficient IT professional, you can easily configure it."

"The product's scalability is good."

"In the VPN scenario, what was happening, the user would get back to the complete source. But in NPA, the application will go to the user. There is an outbound connection. There is no inbound. Storage providers are also not there. It's the best feature because it is the replacement of the VPN."

"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."

"The most valuable feature of Zscaler Private Access is the categorization of the dynamic URLs which keeps the customer's environment protected. The threats and the malware are correctly categorized."

"It is a stable solution."

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

"It is straightforward to set up."

"The VPN is great for the stability on offer and for the cloud updates and insights you can get."

"It is easy to use."

"The most valuable feature of Zscaler Private Access is we do not have to connect to a VPN, it is seamless. It is more convenient for us because we use one agent to cover the internet and VPN access."

"The most valuable features of this solution are the CASB solutions, which is protecting their Office 365."

"The major problem that we are facing is if we deploy Netskope on the server level or if we get a new server in the EMEA factor, it will affect all the machines. Recently, this has caused us to fail some reviews."

"Netskope Private Access only supports TCP and UDP ports and does not support ICMP or ping."

"The main challenge we are facing across various Trust Network Access (TNA) technologies, including Netskope, is their inability to support broadcast applications or those relying on broadcasting protocols."

"I would rate the stability around seven out of ten. Sometimes, we face some difficulty, but it depends upon the complexity of the environment."

"Netskope Private Access allows mapping only one DNS server. If a user uses a secondary DNS on-premises, Netskope fails to disconnect them. This is an issue that needs to be addressed."

"We faced certain issues with China users as it can be rather challenging for them due to the presence of Great Firewall."

"There could be an ability to access one server from another when we have console access to the first server."

"I would like to see them go down the path of including SD-WAN. Currently, they don't do SD-WAN. If they could somehow natively do that inside of the platform, that would be amazing. I don't know if they're going to do it, but it would be amazing if they do."

"Conflicts arise if you do not have the same management teams on the product."

"The menu for the ZIA portal could be organized a little bit differently. The most-used modules should be at the top of the menus, not somewhere near the bottom, some of them are not organized well in my opinion."

"It has a limitation, if you are creating a rule or something for a web application or something, you could only add five users, not more than that. Five or four users are only included in a rule. If you want to create a rule for more than five or four users, you have to go through other methods, not particularly with the application. Working within the application with this method would be quite easy as compared to listing a URL or a normal IP address."

"Zscaler Private Access needs to improve its collaboration with applications without compromising security."

"While Zscaler supports client-initiated connections, it does not support server-initiated connections. This is a feature that Zscaler may consider adding in the future."

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

"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."

"The pricing for Private Access seems to be on the expensive side, and I believe they should consider making it more competitive with other solutions."

"When it comes to pricing, Netskope Private Access is relatively cheap compared to other solutions."

"The tool's price is normal. It is not very cheap but good compared to the competitors."

"It is not cheap, but the value of the solution is there. It's worth the investment."

"It is significantly cost-effective compared to its contenders."

"The pricing of the solution is cheap."

"It is not the most expensive option, being more affordable than Zscaler, but it's also not the most budget-friendly choice available."

"I believe that the price for Netskope Private Access is included in the features or functionality my company purchased from NetSkope."

"There was about 60% ROI, just in terms of savings. We had 40% to 60% reduction in monthly operational costs by using Netskope."

"Zscaler Private Access is extremely expensive."

"The pricing is expensive and on the higher end. Honestly, in my opinion, it is not worth the price."

"The solution is expensive."

"The cost is expensive. It depends on the number of users."

"The price is competitive."

"Zscaler SASE software is quite expensive compared to other solutions"

"The technical support is good."

"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."