We performed a comparison between Cato SASE Cloud Platform and Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"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 query and the SD-WAN are useful features of the solution."
"When I first encountered Cato, I didn't know how to use it, but after a week of training, I could onboard our systems to it, so the solution was easy to learn and navigate."
"The solution is a simple WAN solution. We've onboarded the socket on the Cato platform, and it provides connectivity. There is no complex routing."
"The WAN aggregation feature is the most valuable."
"The solution is stable."
"Cato offers all the functionality found in other solution. The life cycle management is always very stable."
"The visibility control and security aspects are amazing."
"I haven't had any trouble, and practically forget that I'm using it."
"The product is stable."
"From stability and availability standpoints, it is pretty good."
"The tool's most valuable feature is reporting. It helps us understand what's going on in our environment."
"The quarantine feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"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."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"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"
"The different languages in the user interface should be enhanced."
"Cato Networks could improve their intrusion detection. There is not a lot in place."
"I am located in South Korea, and I can say that most people here have no idea about Cato Networks. I think Cato Networks should promote its network services in various countries."
"The tool needs to be more granular. Its reports are not very in-depth."
"They should include a web application firewall feature in the solution."
"Web application firewalling (WAF) is a feature we would like to have in this solution and does not exist yet."
"Its functionality is a bit limited in some areas as compared to a Cisco solution. It is not as granular. It doesn't have the manageability, feature set, and capabilities of a larger or an enterprise-level solution. It just needs a more robust feature set and granularity."
"The solution is not cheap."
"They are priced significantly higher and less cost-effective than alternative options."
"Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker should be cheaper."
"The TLS encryption needs to be improved. It's not state of the art."
"I think some of the hiccups that we had were with the number of domains that we had and how that had to be implemented in Proofpoint."
More Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cato SASE Cloud Platform is ranked 6th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 21 reviews while Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is ranked 14th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 4 reviews. Cato SASE Cloud Platform is rated 8.8, while Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cato SASE Cloud Platform writes "Useful remote worker VPN, centralized management, and simple on-boarding process". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker writes "A highly stable spam filtering solution that can be managed and used by a large number of users". Cato SASE Cloud Platform is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cisco SD-WAN, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet FortiGate and VMware SD-WAN, whereas Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Skyhigh Security. See our Cato SASE Cloud Platform vs. Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker 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.