We performed a comparison between Netskope and Saviynt based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Saviynt has more comprehensive features than Netskope, including backflow handling, certification features, and global third-party user management. Saviynt also has an intuitive UI, in-depth identity knowledge, and report generation features. However, Saviynt's technical support and licensing costs need improvement. Netskope is praised for its protection features and better client size and architectural components, and ability to work with instance IDs in Azure. Netskope's technical support is generally good, and the initial setup is easy. However, Netskope needs better integration with other solutions, improved support services, and more visibility on the reporting side.
"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."
"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 solution is stable."
"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."
"Amazing reporting and tracking mechanisms."
"The most valuable features were related to discovery, data protection, and ensuring compliance with regulations."
"It's a comprehensive security portfolio solution."
"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."
"Technical support is pretty good."
"The product's analytics part is pretty fine."
"A very straightforward interface."
"Its deployment is very easy and quick. Their technical support is also very good."
"Some of the self-service capabilities are quite powerful."
"This product works well out of the box and if you don’t want to do a lot of configuration then this is the best tool."
"Saviynt is easy to configure and manage."
"The most valuable features of Saviynt are database utility and report generation. These two features have a major impact, particularly when you are trying to create a report because, in other systems, you need to use a third-party utility such as a BI tool or any other reporting tool to fetch the data and send out the report to a third party team. In Saviynt, it's a system within a system, so you don't have to use any third-party tool because you can directly do your query and write that code on Saviynt and then send that report to the team."
"The repository has many features where you can define primary and secondary owners."
"The workflow in Saviynt is easier compared to other tools. It's pretty straightforward."
"The product is flexible to use."
"It is a flexible tool because it works on JSON."
"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."
"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."
"Netskope needs to improve its stability."
"It should have user behavior analysis and diverse analysis."
"In terms of improvements, enhancing support, particularly for OEM support with quicker response times would be beneficial."
"The configuration and user behaviour analytics can be improved."
"It needed some fine-tuning on core business sites that we used, which were sensitive to what we term a man-in-the-middle certificate by design. Some sites were not tolerant because they presented as potentially malicious. So, we just had to make some tweaks so that it would bypass or interpret it."
"The solution is still pretty new to the CASB environment."
"The dashboard performance could be much better and faster, but because it is a complicated product, it takes time for the dashboard to process."
"The CSPM model needs to improve."
"The biggest drawback is that for every change you want to make, you have to go back to them and ask for it."
"The UI doesn’t enhance the user experience."
"It is time-consuming to troubleshoot issues."
"In terms of improvement, it's really just a matter of them getting more mature. It's a relatively new solution and they probably need to streamline a few of the processes as they mature. But there are not too many problems."
"Both SailPoint IdentityNow and Saviynt have some bugs, but SailPoint is considered more mature with fewer bugs due to its longer establishment in the market since around 2005. SailPoint had its share of bugs in the early days, but they have resolved them over time, resulting in a stable product. Saviynt, on the other hand, was launched around 2013 or 2014 and is actively working to improve its product. Despite having some bugs, Saviynt is making progress and aims to build a stable product, but it is not there yet."
"The product's stability is not easy to maintain."
"We sometimes experience performance issues when the solution fails to process the data between two different applications."
"The solution is hosted on AWS cloud, and there is some dependency that affects our bottom line."
Netskope is ranked 4th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 35 reviews while Saviynt is ranked 7th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 21 reviews. Netskope is rated 8.4, while Saviynt is rated 7.4. 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 Saviynt writes "Used for IAM, IGA, MFA, SSO, and access management". Netskope is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Cisco Umbrella and Skyhigh Security, whereas Saviynt is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Microsoft Entra ID, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Okta Workforce Identity and Microsoft Identity Manager. See our Netskope vs. Saviynt report.
See our list of best Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) 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.