Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Forcepoint CASB vs Netskope comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 7, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Forcepoint CASB
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
19th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Netskope
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) category, the mindshare of Forcepoint CASB is 1.2%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Netskope is 14.6%, up from 13.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
 

Featured Reviews

Edwin Eze Osiago - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable, easy to set up and offers good visibility
It could be more robust, especially around custom applications. We've not really seen value around our custom applications, most especially when these applications are hosted on-premise. If there's a way Forcepoint can do something to ensure that the CASB also protects applications that are hosted on-premise, that would be ideal. Currently, basically, cloud-hosted applications, that are internet-facing are protected. If we can also have a CASB sit in front of our on-prem hosted applications, it would be massive. Forcepoint removed the ability to scan for unsanctioned applications on the CASB. Initially, CASB used to have that feature where you can scan for the applications and be able to support unsanctioned applications being used by the user. They moved it to another product. If there is an opportunity to speak to the product managers and get some features back, that would be ideal.
Benjamin Naranjo - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides secure remote access and web navigation protection with highly customizable features
The most helpful features in Netskope are the data loss prevention module, the anti-malware module, and the integration that it has with Information Rights Management from Microsoft. It has better categorization and more granular features regarding web protection, as it allows me to control HTTP methods. I can publish WhatsApp web for my users as read-only, for example. Other providers cannot; they are only on and off, and do not have the granularity for a website to be read-only. That comes with a downside, which is that they need to regularly update their controls to support those features in those websites.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Macro integration is a good feature."
"The product offers an easy initial setup."
"It gives you value for your investment."
"The most valuable aspect for us is the fact that the product seamlessly integrates with the Forcepoint DLP."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its management ease."
"Generally, most of our customers are happy with it though."
"As it is based on AWS, it is not a problem."
"Amazing reporting and tracking mechanisms."
"The interface is good."
"In Azure, we have multiple subscriptions and with every subscription, we add some kind of instance ID. We can work with the instance ID so that we allow all of the instances containing nodules. Everything else, we block. This way, if you go to outlook.com and check your email, if you log in with your company account, the instance ID will show. The network will take action according to the instance ID and say, "You are using the enterprise email. I'll let you surf. I'll let you see your email." But when you try to log in with your own email address, like Hotmail or Gmail, the instance ID will be different. This way we are not completely blocking Outlook, but we are blocking people from accessing their Outlook. We are only allowing the enterprise-level emails, and we are not allowing user-based emails."
"Technical support is good. They are very helpful and quick to resolve any issues we have."
"The most helpful features in Netskope are the data loss prevention module, the anti-malware module, and the integration that it has with Information Rights Management from Microsoft."
"Their technical support is very good."
"Netskope is a one-platform security product that provides security functions. It is the most advantageous product in the Japanese market."
"Netskope is a really good product. I cannot segregate which features are the most valuable. We find most of the features to be valuable. It gives us what we are looking for."
 

Cons

"Lacks different ways to authenticate users."
"Integration is an area of the solution that needs to be improved."
"When using the Forcepoint CASB, and you are a remote worker, basically not in the office, you have to have an agent on your computer, a Forcepoint agent. However, with many other CASB solutions, they can integrate with MDM."
"Forcepoint removed the ability to scan for unsanctioned applications on the CASB."
"They should work on the possibility of consolidating all of the products with the group of agents."
"There are various modules to secure a public cloud, such as Cloud Security Posture Management. You might have seen these features available if you've reviewed solutions like Zscaler or Netskope. A full-fledged CASB should be manageable. However, the tool does not seem to offer complete public cloud visibility. While it provides some cloud visibility and can manage API traffic for Web 2.0, it lacks a specific module for securing public cloud environments."
"The solution needs to be easier to install, and they need to clean up the backend, so stuff doesn't break."
"The threat protection features must be improved."
"I would like to see more threat protection in Netskope's Zero Trust Network Access."
"Netskope CASB can improve by working more similarly to a VPN technology instead of a proxy. They then could have visibility on the endpoint device. Most clients have some tools where they check the endpoint health or other things, such as the security posture, or if they want to access the resources. For example, if they should have antivirus running, this kind of posture check should be available but it is missing."
"Deployment and policy tweaking were two areas where improvement needs to be made."
"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 right categorization of websites needs improvement. It is important for the solution to correctly categorize websites as genuine or non-genuine, fitting them into the right category."
"I would like to see the product improved, especially in monitoring and security monitoring. It should be more effective so we can better identify cloud access and understand how users are accessing it. We need better visibility on security and cloud storage access."
"The initial setup is complex and should be simplified."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing really depends on the size of the customer's business because it is price-relevant to the environment."
"The solution is not that expensive compared to Zscaler. Netskope is between Forcepoint CASB and Zscaler in terms of cost. Forcepoint CASB would be the first choice because it negotiates well and offers a perpetual license, though it may seem subscription-based. I rate its pricing a six out of ten."
"The tool's pricing is not too cheap or expensive. However, it can be costly for a small business."
"The pricing is competitive."
"Licensing fees are paid annually."
"It is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is very flexible."
"There is a license required for this solution and there are many licensing models available. For example, what applications are covered as part of the license."
"They should work on licensing costs."
"The price is in the middle range compared to other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) solutions are best for your needs.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint CASB?
The solution is not that expensive compared to Zscaler. Netskope is between Forcepoint CASB and Zscaler in terms of cost. Forcepoint CASB would be the first choice because it negotiates well and of...
What needs improvement with Forcepoint CASB?
There are some areas that could be improved, particularly regarding support issues. Forcepoint could enhance their products by adding new features that are currently lacking.
What is your primary use case for Forcepoint CASB?
People typically use Forcepoint CASB along with other Forcepoint tools such as Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway.
Which is better, Zscaler internet access or Netsckope CASB?
We researched Netskope but ultimately chose Zscaler. Netskope is a cloud access security broker that helps identify and manage cloud applications, protecting your sensitive data from exfiltration....
What do you like most about Netskope CASB?
The product's analytics part is pretty fine.
 

Also Known As

Imperva Skyfence
Netskope CASB
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Zions Bank, GE Healthcare, HomeAway, Logitech, Universal, California National Resources Agency and many mor
NetApp, Genomic Health, Caterpillar, Apollo, Pandora, Continental Resources, Fractal, infinera, Tesla
Find out what your peers are saying about Forcepoint CASB vs. Netskope and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.