We performed a comparison between Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks 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 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 solution is stable."
"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."
"It supports auto-scaling for mobile users. It auto-scales depending on the mobile user traffic. For example, if 1,000 people are working from home today, and tomorrow, the number increases to 2,000, it is not going to be an issue."
"Prisma Access protects all app traffic, so that users can gain access to all apps and that's very important because we need to be able to access everything. It also allows us to access non-web apps; anything internal that we need access to, we can access."
"There are plenty of features this solution provides and the most valuable would be the complete security protection we are receiving. We are provided with similar security that the Palo Alto AWS solution has. This includes features such as a firewall and machine learning AI."
"The most valuable feature of Prisma Cloud-native, in my opinion, is that it assists in identifying, analyzing, and remediating vulnerabilities."
"Prisma Access gives us security from a single point. It controls mobile users and determines how secure their networks will be, including from where they will get internet access. We can optimize things and add security profiles centrally."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to change the gateway. For example, if there's a problem with a specific region or vendor, we can make modifications. The solution is scalable, and there are different gateways that can be created depending on the demand."
"Prisma SaaS is very easy to use; it's common sense — it's the best-in-class."
"Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is a seamless solution."
"It is a stable solution."
"I like the web filtering capabilities."
"The best feature is the ability to establish the connection between your public network and automatically connect to the intranet connection."
"The most valuable feature is the manageability of the micro tunnels."
"SASE's most valuable features are proxy and content filtering."
"The user interface of Zscaler Private Access is excellent. With proper knowledge and expertise, one can efficiently handle intricate enterprise environments without feeling overwhelmed. This leads to exceptional productivity for managed service providers. The user experience is remarkably streamlined, enabling the management of even the most complex enterprise setups without any excessive complications."
"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."
"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."
"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"
"From any improvement perspective, the product's compatibility issues with Linux need to be resolved."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required. The solution's price should be lowered."
"The user interface could be better. They need to work a little bit on the console. It is similar to their firewalls but not exactly. They need to clean it up a bit."
"The solution’s stability could be improved."
"When we deploy firewall rules via Panorama, we find it's a little bit slow. We have a global environment and might have 100 gateways or VPNs in the cloud. When we deploy something, it tries to deploy it one-by-one, and that can be slow."
"Lacks a hybrid model which has API plus in-line security."
"The initial support team is not very good. Most of the time, I have found that they are one to three years experienced only. They don't have network expertise. They know about Palo Alto products but don't know how to troubleshoot the issues. We have to guide them most of the time to troubleshoot correctly since their approach is not developed."
"It's not very easy to use. Sometimes it's buggy and there are problems when doing updates. The user interface is okay, but some configuration items are difficult. I would like it to be less buggy and easier to configure, to better streamline the user experience."
"There is some issue while accessing the portal. It takes too long."
"What could be improved in Zscaler Private Access is its notification. For example, if there's a speed issue, there should be a pop-up that alerts the user about it. If there is a network quality issue, for example, it isn't good enough to connect to, or the network quality is bad, there should be a notification from the solution. Zscaler Private Access also needs improvement in terms of its interface and security."
"Sometimes applications crash on some machines, and we’d like Zscaler to give us some information as to why that may have happened. We’d like more detailed reports."
"Conflicts arise if you do not have the same management teams on the product."
"The stability could be improved."
"It has massive room for improvement. The Zscaler product itself is okay, but it doesn't give enough granularity for us as an organization to stipulate rules or processes, especially for data-driven services. For instance, we can stick on SSL inspection, but it's just a click box. It doesn't allow us to go any further into the detail of the SSL inspection. We also can't pull it out without having an additional logging server. It just doesn't give us enough granularity. They should give us more control over the interfaces because it is all backend. They weren't very open to discussing their backend architecture with us in terms of their own data centers. They can maybe a little bit more open about what components are there and how the backend infrastructure works alongside Zscaler. Its licensing can be better. Some of the additional licensing costs are quite high, and they should have certain features ready and available as a baseline rather than having to purchase additional licenses for it. Their support should also be improved. I initially had a consultant from Zscaler for its deployment, but the support that I had throughout the deployment of the project wasn't the best."
"I can't speak to any missing features."
"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."
More Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 2nd in ZTNA as a Service with 56 reviews while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is ranked 1st in ZTNA as a Service with 34 reviews. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks writes "Integration with Palo Alto platforms such as Cortex Data Lake and Autofocus gives us visibility into our attack surface". 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". Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Netskope , Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, Prisma SD-WAN and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, whereas Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is most compared with Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Axis Security, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Cloudflare Access and Perimeter 81.
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.
