We performed a comparison between NetFoundry and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks, Cisco and others in ZTNA as a Service."The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"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 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."
"The Network as a Service that they offer is most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is in the cloud."
"The most valuable feature is the manageability of the micro tunnels."
"The best feature is the ability to establish the connection between your public network and automatically connect to the intranet connection."
"It is straightforward to set up."
"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."
"I like the web filtering capabilities."
"With SASE, we have a single platform that covers multiple task services with which we need to control access. All the features are equally valuable."
"The scalability is pretty good."
"It is easy to use."
"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."
"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."
"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"
"If they have a firewall capability, that would be good. Currently, because they don't have a firewall, we are required to put another layer of control on top of their solution. A built-in firewall would be quite good."
"The solution could provide internet access control."
"We often face performance and latency issues with Zscaler SASE."
"I can't speak to any missing features."
"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."
"We'd like to have two-factor authentication that is quite simple."
"Zscaler Private Access could improve by improving external access. If external parties want to access locally to my company's services, we need to onboard them into our domain, otherwise, it doesn't work. Additionally, if their company also has Zscaler Private Access, then it doesn't work. They need to log in with our domain ID, not their company ID."
"More on-prem infrastructure is required when Zscaler Private Access is to be implemented as a single point of entry."
"Zscaler Private Access's reporting is poor. We should have more insight into the reports regarding what is blocked and allowed."
"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."
NetFoundry is ranked 21st in ZTNA as a Service with 2 reviews while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is ranked 1st in ZTNA as a Service with 34 reviews. NetFoundry is rated 9.0, while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of NetFoundry writes "Easy to set up, stable, and helpful for integrating the systems that require a fast and reliable connection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange writes "Allows for strict access control, granting access to specific applications at a URL level rather than at the physical IP level". NetFoundry is most compared with , whereas Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Axis Security, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client and Cloudflare Access.
See our list of best ZTNA as a Service vendors and best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) vendors.
We monitor all ZTNA as a Service 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.