Netskope Reviews

CASB: allows selective cloud service access, e.g., it allows our O365 tenant but prevents upload to other tenants.

It allows the use of cloud since we can control risks vs. just blocking access.

Tenant identification for cloud storage services.

Better debugging tools to identify operational concerns, e.g., "Netskope is slow", and the only way to prove it's not is to disable it — no data on time taken for different hops.

The most valuable feature for us is the 360-degree visibility it provides. Now I have the ability to see what’s coming and going in the organization from a cloud application perspective. I had no visibility into that whatsoever and with this now I can see what’s coming, what’s going. The ability to see our apps compare multiple apps that are the same time, for example, like Box and Dropbox, I can actually compare them to see which is a better fit. I can see uptimes and I can assess risk to them based on things that are important to us and not just the industry.

It’s very adjustable to the things that I want, which might be different than the things that you want and different than things that other companies want. For us being a company that deals with patient data, you can imagine that it's really important to us that we have a company that’s got, for example, a SOX certification. If you are a company that doesn’t view all that kind of sensitive data, you don’t really care. In just seconds I can go on to Netskope and see exactly what the situation is.

It gives us visibility. When we saw how many applications that we had, there was a huge gap between what we thought we had and what we were actually using.

I'd like to have slider bars that allow you to adjust the tool to your risk appetite. For example, we're able to adjust the bar to select the five "must have" vendors so that they're accessible based on the stock report as "must haves". I'd like this functionality to allow us to adjust the products based on our standard contract language. For example, we use Salesforce and we use Box.com, and it would be great if I can go on there and say, Salesforce or Box we have a negotiated uptime of 99.5%. That way when their tool sees that Box is not available for whatever reason and it’s not on us, it can send us a flag saying, “Over this last quarter we’ve recorded Box not being available two percent of the time, which has dropped their availability below the 99.5% threshold that you’ve configured, and therefore you might want to reach out to that.” That would be fantastic.

One of the things that we are starting to do more and more of is have direct connection to our vendors through our data centers. I’m not exactly sure how they integrate when that happens. This is just an open question, there is no answer, there is no right or wrong here. It’s something that I’m interested in knowing.

I would say the other piece that I would like is reporting. In the past, I’ve been able to compare multiple vendors, so I could compare Dropbox to Box to Office365 storage. I haven’t been able to export that data out of the tool in the same way that I view it in the portal. The business units that are coming and saying “Hey, we are looking at a whatever tool and these are the three products that we are looking at, can you give me a report of them?” It’s this process of sort of explosion. We didn’t expect to find the tool useful in this particular area, but we’re seeing this a lot. When I show them what I can do on the screen, they love it, but when I go to print it looks different. That’s something I’d really to see change.

I've been using it for two years now.

It's been 100% stable. We’ve never had a glitch with it.

I don’t have a good answer for you beyond what we have set up. We have a major office in the San Francisco Bay Area. We have an office in Geneva and we have some other data centers scattered throughout the world, some smaller offices. We are able to cover them with really no issues whatsoever. I have zero concerns that this product is not going to meet our needs as we continue to grow.

They've been both knowledgeable and proactive, and that's why we bought Netskope. I really like the fact that I can pick up the phone and call Netskope and get someone on the line that’s going to have an interest in my issue.

We were not using anything before. We recognized that the whole cloud space and cloud applications was a major hole which we assumed was a massive vulnerability for us, and sure enough it was. I mean there was hundreds of applications we didn’t even know the company was using. We identified this as a big blind spot and we were able remediate it.

We did everything in-house and it was really smooth and simple. We didn’t do blocking right away. We turned it on just to gather intelligence about the organization. Who is using what? How are they using it? Then we gradually moved into blocking or coaching or diverting, etc.

Do not be surprised by the results. Do not jump off the cliff when you get that first report because I haven’t talked to anybody that’s deployed this product or even a similar competitive product that was not surprised by the result.

Do not try and eat the cow in one bite. Take it slow and steady because if you try and turn it on and immediately it impacts the end user, you’re probably not going to be successful. There is a little bit of a learning curve and you could block everything. If you try to drink from the fire hose, you just can’t do it.

Give yourself some time as you buy it and deploy it to get acclimated to it. Do take baby steps and I think that you’ll find that you’ll actually get the implementation done quicker doing that than if you try to just turn it on.

It gives us a very broad look at SaaS governance. It doesn’t focus only on security risk, it also brings in the vast assets of managing SaaS and it addresses redundancies in the SaaS that we have paid for.

It gives us a view into risk, redundancy and cost, just to build on what I said previously. It helps us minimize risk in SaaS, and helps us minimize redundancy in SaaS and cost itself.

I would like for the product to have very clear visibility with regards to what SaaS is being used actively versus what SaaS is being accessed from a passive user.

I've used it for about one year.

We haven't encountered any issues with deployment.

It's been very stable.

We are working on scaling right now. I don’t foresee any issues.

To their credit, we haven’t needed to activate technical support from a troubleshooting perspective much. Otherwise, they have been very proactive in regards to reaching out to us with new features and capabilities.

Security risks were the main drivers to choosing this product.

It’s very straightforward. It was very administrative, but it wasn’t that extensive.

It was done in-house, but they did have people working with us in case we needed assistance.

We evaluated the entire ecosystem of products at that time. Netskope met the majority of our needs at that time as well as now, which means it's still the leading product.

This solution should be recognized as a very important tool that gets your organization to a certain vision or a certain outcome. If the organization wants to have a very clear picture on redundancies and costs, and to map all its enterprise capabilities to verified SaaS vendors, then this tool can do both proactive policing as well as passive.

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.

As a worker located in a remote location, accessing office information securely is crucial. To facilitate this, we utilize Netskope.

The most valuable feature of Netskope is protection.

The CSPM model needs to improve.

I have been using Netskope for approximately two years.

Netskope is reliable.

I rate the stability of Netskope a ten out of ten.

The solution is highly scalable and there is very low latency. 

I rate the scalability of Netskope a ten out of ten.

The support is good. They provide support in English and Portuguese.

The implementation of Netskope was straightforward.

I have received a high ROI using the solution.

The price is in the middle range compared to other solutions.

I rate the price of Netskope a five out of five.

I recommend Netskope if it fits the customer's use case.

I rate Netskope a nine out of ten.

Netskope is a one-platform security product that provides security functions. It is the most advantageous product in the Japanese market.

Technical support and the user interface could be improved.

I have been using Netskope for two or three years.

The product is stable.

The response time of customer support could be better.

Positive

The initial setup varies depending on the customer's needs.

I recommend the solution to bigger companies. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.