Netskope Reviews

The main issue with end customers is that they are not aware of their cloud post-management and what cloud applications their users are using. With Netskope CASB, they can get a better understanding of the real scenario and identify the cloud apps that are being utilized. Most partners only know about 2% of all the cloud apps being used.

Netskope CASB also provides Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions with two levels, standard and advanced. The solution offers strong DLP policies.

Netskope CASB has authorized over 57,000 cloud apps and classifies them on a rating scale between zero and one hundred based on compliance with regulatory standards. With this feature, organizations can easily determine which cloud apps are compliant and which are not.

Many cloud apps are not in compliance and are at risk of being breached, but with Netskope CASB, they can be classified and better managed. These are the most valuable features according to me.

Netskope could improve the policy integration with more friendly parameters within the DLP (data loss prevention) module of the CASB product. It would make it easier for administrators to use the DLP module, and this improvement would be integrated into Netskope CASB.

It is a stable solution, and I haven't found any stability issues. Within the transfer solutions, it's quite fast, also.

The solution is quite scalable. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward once you know where the data is located, whether in a physical data center or a cloud provider like Amazon.

There could be room for improvement in the subscription process. The current process is via an application, which requires a scan of the apps being used to determine the necessary licensing. This process could be simplified by basing the licensing on the number of users, similar to Netskope's work gateway solution. This would make it easier for the end user to request a quote without having to go through the discovery process.

I would rate it an eight out of ten, primarily due to the subscription process being confusing for end-users.

Netskope CASB is used in the company for a few shared IT cloud connections.

We are consultants. We manage the projects for implementation. We work with the customers.

Netskope CASB has improved our organization's security rather than its functionality.

The most useful feature of this solution is Cloud Control, which allows me to schedule cloud uploads.

The dashboard performance could be much better and faster, but because it is a complicated product, it takes time for the dashboard to process.

I have worked with Netskope CASB for a couple of years.

Netskope CASB is a stable solution. It is comparable to any other product.

I am not familiar with the scalability of this solution because we only use it for a limited number of endpoints.

We have about 300 endpoints with five to eight users each.

This is for one customer, who may or may not be increasing the usage.

The market is currently very difficult.

We have not contacted technical support.

We worked with an integrator and never had any technical issues.

Our clients did not use any other solutions previously.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy to set up.

We deployed it in the learning mode to understand what's going on in the organization. We activated it after a few weeks.

Netskope completed the deployment.

It's difficult to quantify ROI when it comes to security. It must be breached first.

Licensing fees are paid annually.

Fees are comparable to others. Pricing is somewhere in the middle.

There are no additional licensing costs, however, there are operational costs. The customer will have to hire an additional person to train him on how to use the product.

Our clients chose Netskope CASB because it was easy to implement, and maintain.

It's simple to use and configure. It provides a nice dashboard, and live data.

I would rate Netskope CASB a nine out of ten.  The most important factors are stability, performance, and features.

A feature that was valuable was the built-in website classification or safety ratings. Different websites would be rated according to analyses that the Netskope team had done, and we built policies on some of those scores. If the website scored less than a certain percentage, then we would have a different user experience around how the site would interact with the clients.

It needed some fine-tuning on core business sites that we used, which were sensitive to what we term a man-in-the-middle certificate by design. Some sites were not tolerant because they presented as potentially malicious. So, we just had to make some tweaks so that it would bypass or interpret it.

The features that we would like to see are available but require additional investment. We wanted more of the CASB type feature set, which was at a higher subscription cost, and we didn't have budget for it. We just went with their standard offering, which was the secure web gateway.

We used it for a little over 12 months, and it was deployed on Netskope cloud.

The stability is very good. I can't recall any outages with the product in the time that we used it.

It is easy to scale, and it's fully automated through the Azure AD integration.

The support team we were dealing with were not based onshore, and I don't think we had a premium support model at that time. As a result, we had to wait sometimes to get the outcome that we were looking for. If it was more of an immediate issue that was impacting our customers, we couldn't get support immediately. They would capture the request and then came back to us later on. The speed of their response to the support request could have been better, and I would give technical support a rating of eight out of ten.

Positive

It makes sense for us to have the gateway capabilities of a Netskope product. We retired an internal or on-premises web filter or web proxy called WebMarshal. It wasn't meeting our needs, particularly through lockdown and the increased demands on the web filter from remote users. So, we made the decision to go with a cloud-based SWG.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Our approach was to do the implementation as part of a proof of concept; it was more of a try-before-you-buy situation. Because of that, there was a lot of good support from Netskope directly to actually implement the POC. Once we did that and saw the benefits, the hard work had already been done to make it a production system for us. I would rate the initial setup at five out of five.

Deployment took a couple of weeks, maximum. The environment was set up quickly by the Netskope success manager, and the agent itself was quickly deployed by us through our system center management tool.

Being cloud based, it self- manages and doesn't require specific maintenance.

We had three technical staff and about 1,000 clients working on this solution.

I recall that the price was considerably cheaper than that of Zscaler. It was around 60,000 AUD for 1,000 users per year and included some training and some premier support offerings.
If we wanted to take advantage of the CASB capabilities, then there was an additional subscription fee, for which we didn't have the budget. On price, I would give Netskope a three or four out of five because it's quite expensive, but it offers a lot of value.

We looked at Netskope and Zscaler. Netskope came out on top.

My recommendation would be to definitely to shortlist Netskope CASB and strongly consider it because it was a very positive experience for us, particularly with the support that we got from our onshore partner.

It still deserves to be compared with other products in that sector such as Zscaler; it's probably one of the market leaders. It's definitely worth looking at others, but we were very happy with Netskope CASB, and the team continue to use it today. I would give it an overall rating of nine on a scale from one to ten.

We used this solution for policies that would manage private and public cloud storage applications. I'm the senior information security analyst and we are customers of Netskope. 

CASB has a lot of good features; their reporting and tracking mechanism is amazing. 

Deployment and policy tweaking were two areas where improvement needs to be made. The issues with policy tweaking were caused by the difficulty surrounding deployment and configuration. Netskope was not ready for the Mac environment and the support team didn't have sufficient knowledge to deal with Mac users. From a feature standpoint, I would have liked to see more visibility on the reporting side and easy disabling of Netskope. The solution did not have an easy API for integration. Setting up a reverse proxy was not easily accessible with Netskope so we decided to move to a different tool. 

I used this solution for one year. 

Lagging was definitely an issue, especially in the Philippines. I had to disable Netskope for almost all of our Philippino employees. It may have been something with the Netskope architecture as they use their own data center in Singapore and not AWS. Some of the ISPs in the Philippines were not able to get good connections to the Singapore data center. We have a huge employee base in the Philippines, the issue could not be resolved, and this was just not good enough for us. At the time we had around 350 users. 

I personally dealt with their support team, and the support was bad. I don't know whether anybody from a Windows environment had the same issue with Netskope, but for those in a Mac environment, it was a problem. I had to escalate it up to their VP, but the issues could not be resolved so we have moved on.

Negative

The initial setup wasn't too complex, we didn't have SSO in our organization at the time so creating user groups wasn't possible. It was one of the major criteria for them when we started deployment and had the CSM member from Netskope help us with the deployment. They were unable to help us figure out what the solution might be. 

Licensing wasn't cheap, particularly when you take into account the number of hours our team had to put in to get issues resolved, and even then they weren't able to get where the company needed to be. 

If you're a Mac user, I would not recommend installing Netskope on your device.

I rate this solution five out of 10. 

We use Netskope CASB to establish an audit trail of all the accesses to SAS applications, and other applications hosted on our cloud infrastructure. We use it for the identification of shadow IT applications. Additionally, we use Netskope CASB to have the visibility of all the applications hosted on the cloud.

The client size and architectural components in Netskope are far better than other solutions.

There could be better integration with other solutions. 

I have been using this solution for two years.

The solution is stable.

Netskope CASB is scalable.

The solution is easy to implement.

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.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Netskope CASB an eight out of ten.

For a secured web gateway in my company, everything revolves around Netskope CASB and Netskope DLP. I mostly use the tool for cloud access and to ensure a secure web gateway.

The most valuable feature of the product stems from the fact that there is a list of all Netskope POPs, which is the point of presence spread throughout the world. When you work on the backbone of the tool, you can break out, meaning you don't have to come back to your original service provider and then go to your new service provider to use the tool on the internet. If I am in the US or the UK, I can break out at that POP when using Netskope, so I don't need to come back onto my network and go back through my network again to access the product.

The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required.

Netskope is a good product. The tool has a whole new list of features that have come out now, but I have not checked them out.

The product's reporting capabilities have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required.

The solution's technical support response time is an area that needs to be improved.

I have been using Netskope for seven years. I don't use the product for my customers.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The uptime offered by the solution is around 99.99 percent.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product is mostly used in medium to enterprise-sized organizations.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was simple since a user basically just needs an agent to be rolled out.

The solution can be deployed very quickly. It may take you a bit of time to set up the rules, but the rollout of the product to its customers is very quick.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud.

It is an expensive solution.

The customers' budget may influence whether they would choose Palo Alto Networks, Palo Alto Networks K2-Series, or Netskope. I think Palo Alto Networks focuses on offering a bit more enterprise-oriented products, and I would probably also go with medium-sized companies since it is easier to administer than Netskope. Netskope and Palo Alto Networks offer the same functionalities, and it is all about support and implementation.

Palo Alto Networks has more integrations with other products, meaning it has a bigger integration stack with other products, which Netskope doesn't offer. With Palo Alto Networks, I can use EDR and all of its other tools, which Netskope doesn't offer. If I look at things from a consolidated view and consider my customer's requirements in terms of price and cost, then Palo Alto Networks would probably be preferable over Netskope.

It is possible to organize a secured web gateway with the use of Netskope.

In terms of the most efficient real-time data protection related to Netskope, it is possible for users to set up DLP rules in real time.

I have experience with Netskope's analytics and reporting capabilities. The product's analytics part is pretty fine.

I rate the overall product a seven and a half to eight out of ten.

This mainly concerns the proxy level, with an emphasis on operational work rather than implementation. Forcepoint's implementation is completed.

Netskope's control is user-friendly and comprehensible. It also helps in conveying information effectively as a company, making it crucial for customer satisfaction. In essence, it is simple to grasp and facilitates consultant work.

In terms of improvements, enhancing support, particularly for OEM support with quicker response times would be beneficial. Additionally, incorporating an agent-based solution for endpoint DLP could be advantageous, as it's a trend seen in solutions like Forcepoint, where a single agent handles multiple tasks. By adding some features for Infant DLP, Netskope could attract more customers.

I have been working with Netskope for the past year and a half.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I'd rate the scalability an eight out of ten because there's a competing product to Cisco that might be necessary. Zscaler offers flexibility in working capabilities, especially during customer proof of concept management, though the chances of needing it are minor, around 2-3%. It's essential to consider usage details.

The main issue is convincing customers on the opposite side to switch to the rescheduled side. They need to work on ensuring that all the features provided in NetFlow are available to both end tenants and paid tenants.

They can be improved to be better. 

Neutral

The key factors for the switch are stability and user-friendliness. When providing the console to the customer's IT team or management, it should be straightforward to understand, handle, operate, and troubleshoot. However, in the case of Zscaler, while it is faster, its control interface can be a bit awkward.

The setup is easy and it is deployed on a hybrid basis. 

I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten. 

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten, with the only area for improvement being the network and endpoint aspects. Specifically, the development part for the endpoint needs work. When considering all the points mentioned earlier, I'd say it's an eight point five, which is acceptable.

Most of my customers are using Netskope CASB as a cloud DLP only to control applications, such as SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams. They are using the Zero Trust access feature from Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS to access their resources.

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.

I have been using Netskope CASB for one and a half years.

The scalability of Netskope CASB can improve. It is not yet scalable for large organizations that can have millions of users. If this is an older and larger environment, there might need more improvements in the performance. However, Netskope CASB is good for small to medium-size businesses, but still not for large organizations. 

I found the support from Netskope CASB not to be responsive. There were delays and the customer was not happy because there was some critical issue. It should be an immediate response for critical issues, or at least in a day or two, but they were taking sometimes a week or more. The support could improve.

I rate the technical support from Netskope CASB a three out of five.

My clients are shifting towards using ZTNA because it is a VPN solution and has more benefits with a single agent they are given cloud resources with security.

The initial setup of Netskope CASB is easy, it is not complex.

I rate the ease of setup of Netskope CASB a four out of five.

Since we are a partner of Netskope CASB there should be a knowledge base document wherein we should not be dependent on customer support. I'm sure there'll be in the future. Netskope CASB will handle multiple cases with different issues. There should be a centralized knowledge base where they can put all their issues and have visualization, of whatever they have resolved in the past. It will be easy for customers to go and look if they have a similar issue, instead of relying on a support response. This improvement should be made.

I rate Netskope CASB a nine out of ten.

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.

There is no real room for improvement that I can think of. Most of the features meet our requirements. I don't see anything that can be improved now. If something would need improvement I would offer the suggestion and I believe it would be taken care of.  

Support services could definitely be improved. Support is the one area that can always use improvement. It's an evolving thing, so based on demand and based on market requirement and the way market is moving towards.

I have been using Netskope for one year. 

It's quite stable. As of now, we haven't had any kinds of bugs or anything within our environment.

It's scalable. We have around 500 users using it at my company. 

Technical support is good. 

The initial setup was straight forward. 

I would recommend it. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I have done a couple of implementations from small to large enterprise IT companies.

I have found the most useful features to be the Web Secure Gateway, CASB, infrastructural service scanning, and Zero Trust. Additionally, the UI is very simple to work with.

There should be some granular custom roles that are not available. However, this is on the road map. There are many devices that do not have the Zero Trust feature and other enhancements available which they should have.

In an upcoming release, they need to improve the reverse proxy. There are only a limited amount of applications that support it and are not able to be managed. Additionally, there should be improvements in the policy structure to restrict scrolling up and down.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable. However, if you do not keep the solution upgraded monthly you might run into some stability issues.

 The solution is suitable for small to large enterprise companies.

The technical support is very good with the premium service. They were very responsive with the solutions we needed and the tickets we were dealt with at a high priority.

The price of the solution is fair but it depends on your use case.

My advice to those wanting to implement the solution is you have to plan it out first. It is always good to know exactly how the solution operates before you are going to implement it. Plan it accordingly, rather than deploying it on all machines. First implement it on every business unit with some test users, test plans, test policies deployed, and test it out. Not all applications are supported by any of the security of the entire solution. Those applications that are not supported you have to bypass them. At this stage, only the deployment has to be done. You have a defined project plan and it is important to follow it.

I rate Netskope CASB a nine out of ten.