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.

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.

Netskope is an efficient, reliable, and easy-to-manage solution. It goes very granular in blocking some of the features in third-party cloud solutions, like share or download.

Netskope could further onboard new SaaS-based platforms into their CASB solutions. Netskope already has its in-build capabilities, but some might be missing.

From the reverse proxy side, Netskope needs to be more reliable for Microsoft Azure customers. They are still dependent on Microsoft access control from SaaS. It would be good if they could remove this dependency because some customers don't have P1 licenses.

We need Microsoft capabilities to access reverse proxies because it depends on that. Users logging in to their SaaS solution and not using the Netskope agent cannot use this reverse proxy feature. The solution's documentation still needs to be improved.

I have been using Netskope for two years.

I rate Netskope a nine out of ten for stability.

Netskope should improve its customer support in terms of technicality and response time.

The solution’s initial setup is quick and easy.

Netskope is not as expensive as Palo Alto. On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

We usually sell Netskope because it's a unified platform for SWG, DLP capabilities, and CASB. Netskope is a strong leader in CASB and has integrated other parts like SWG and NPA. Netskope is a cloud-based solution.

Netskope is a very granular product, and you can do a lot of things with it. Microsoft doesn't onboard all the third-party SaaS-based providers. It doesn't have any granularity to build policies.

Netskope is more suitable for small to medium businesses.

Overall, I rate Netskope an eight out of ten.

Netskope has a diverse portfolio range, which includes cloud access security brokers, content filtering, behavior analytics, and security management. 

Netskope needs to improve its stability. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

Netskope is a scalable product. My company's 30 percent of the workforce is using the product. 

The tool's technical support is good. They have premium support options and will reach back very quickly. 

Positive

My company used Netskope because it is user-friendly and has seamless deployment. It has its own cloud and is not reliant on other private cloud providers like AWS. 

A new user will encounter moderate difficulty while deploying the solution. Deployment is easy for a person with a networking background. 

The tool's pricing is not too cheap or expensive. However, it can be costly for a small business. 

I rate Netskope an eight out of ten. 

We use the product for cloud application access.

The product's integration with VMware Workspace ONE could be improved. Additionally, they could add endpoint security features similar to Trend Micro.

We have been using the platform for 18 months.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten.

It is a very scalable tool.

The technical support team takes too long to reply for different time zones. We have to give them all the information from the beginning per their protocol every time.

Neutral

It is a SaaS-based solution and is deployed on the cloud. It is very fast to deploy. We took three months to complete as we had to make many changes to the previous version. I rate the process a seven out of ten.

The product's price is average. We are receiving a competitive offer from Trend Micro Apex One. So, we are evaluating it.

We are evaluating Trend Micro Apex One.

I advise others to make an inventory of all the cloud apps. They should ensure all the shadow IT instances are included in their policies.

I rate the platform an eight out of ten.

My primary use case was finding a SaaS tool to bring the entire organization under a single network. I also needed features like web filtering, proxy, and protection.

Accuracy could be improved.

I have been using Netskope for six months.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes around two to three weeks. We worked altogether with operation team for deployment.

It saves 20 percent of our money.

Before, it was a lot cheaper. Now they're at a higher price.

We have connected our local network and AD also. It is moderately difficult.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.

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.