We performed a comparison between Netskope Private Access 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 base features have been fantastic. The ability to be able to granularly assign application access to end-users has been really good."
"The product's scalability is good."
"We can block and alert the ports and allow the public traffic software in our environment."
"It is a stable solution."
"The initial setup of Netskope Private Access is pretty simple and straightforward."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Netskope enables users to securely access private applications remotely without a VPN."
"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."
"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."
"Yes, it is very stable. I have never seen it go down, not once."
"I find all Zscaler Private Access features valuable because each replaces flawed technologies, such as EPAs being replacements for VPN and PR as a replacement for PAM, so I can't mention only one valuable feature. Overall, Zscaler Private Access is a good solution."
"Sandboxing, DLP, and SSL inspection engine are the most valuable features of Zscaler SASE."
"SASE's most valuable features are proxy and content filtering."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the CASB solutions, which is protecting their Office 365."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to establish connectivity for remote users and remote endpoints. It offers a high level of granularity compared to typical VPNs, which also encapsulate a lot of I/O."
"The most valuable features are the File Type Control and SSL bypass policies. We"
"Netskope detects certain data or contents, but there are some limitations on how we can customize those policies for DLP."
"The solution needs to develop faster features. Its interoperability feature is not working. It takes six months to one year for any product to implement the improvements. However, the process should be faster to implement the changes quickly."
"The cost has room for improvement."
"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."
"Netskope Private Access only supports TCP and UDP ports and does not support ICMP or ping."
"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."
"There could be an ability to access one server from another when we have console access to the first server."
"We faced certain issues with China users as it can be rather challenging for them due to the presence of Great Firewall."
"More on-prem infrastructure is required when Zscaler Private Access is to be implemented as a single point of entry."
"Users report application access or latency issues with Zscaler Private Access."
"Zscaler Private Access's reporting is poor. We should have more insight into the reports regarding what is blocked and allowed."
"I can't speak to any missing features."
"There are latency issues with the solution. They are small, however, they are there when you compare it to other vendors."
"We often face performance and latency issues with Zscaler SASE."
"There is improvement in enhancing proper manageability, policies, and logs. So, log management could be improved."
"We would like to extend the SASE applications for Zscaler."
Netskope Private Access is ranked 6th in ZTNA as a Service with 14 reviews while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is ranked 1st in ZTNA as a Service with 34 reviews. Netskope Private Access is rated 8.6, while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Netskope Private Access writes "Provides network visibility, infrastructure protection and advanced security protections, especially the DLP (Data Loss Protection)". 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". Netskope Private Access is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Appgate SDP, Google BeyondCorp Remote Access, Jamf Connect and Cloudflare Access, 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 Cisco Umbrella.
See our list of best ZTNA as a Service 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.
