Zscaler Internet Access Reviews

Zscaler Internet Access's best feature is the granular policy controls.

Zscaler Internet Access's troubleshooting is very limited, and their textbook logs need to be more informative.

I've been using Zscaler Internet Access for over five years.

Zscaler Internet Access's stability is pretty good, and when an issue occurs, they're very quick to notify the end-users and fix it.

Zscaler Internet Access is very scalable, and requests for scalable solutions are met quickly.

Zscaler Internet Access's technical support is very good and fast. Sometimes, I've had trouble with level one people, but once an issue is escalated to higher-up engineers, they're pretty quick to provide the solutions.

The initial setup was straightforward - Zscaler Internet Access is plug-and-play, and it's the simplest proxy solution I could recommend.

Licenses are available on a per-host basis. Some features like sandboxing require an additional fee, but most standard features are included in the license.

Zscaler Internet Access is very good, and I would recommend it to others. I would give it a rating of eight out of ten.

The product is an endpoint solution for private and internet security. I use it myself in my home office. I'm in sales. I use it as an endpoint solution for my laptop, for my device, in order to get access to some internal service applications, such as pricing and time management tools.

Zscaler is a very stable solution.

The security is excellent.

I don't know whether it's Zscaler or not, however, sometimes I can't access my time management. I need to wait and try again a few hours later. Typically, if I let some time pass, I can access it again.

From time to time, there's instability in terms of the user experience. I don't know whether it's Zscaler or the time instrument server itself. I don't know the root cause here, that this is the only thing, that causes me issues. Otherwise, I'm quite happy with it.

The solution should do more in regards to handling phishing emails. They maybe should pair with a solution like Palo Alto in order to offer a more holistic view of the security and offer behavioral analytics or endpoint protection, etc., and all from one vendor. Data Lake, for example, is a product that gets the information and gives feedback to the user. There seems to be a high volume of phishing emails that we get, and I'd like to understand what the company is doing to address that. Zscaler seems like it's just a bit too static.

I've been using the solution for four years.

Aside from issues I've had accessing time management from time to time, it seems to be a stable solution.

The question of scalability would be best posed to our CSO. However, my whole team uses it. It's been scaled in our organization to a very small extent. In that sense, it was easy to scale. 

I don't know the maximum capacity, however, it's my understanding that the solution is suitable for organizations like us with about 3,000 employees.

We have our own technical support. I've never directly contacted Zscaler in order to get assistance.

I purely go to our first level of support. Any issues I've ever had have been solved on the first or second level. It's my understanding, that if the issue exceeds a certain level of support, it would be forwarded to Zscaler. However, I've never had issues of that nature. The only issues I've dealt with have been rather easy to solve.

We were previously using Pulse Secure in our organization. I needed to switch it on and off. On top of that, certain applications I could not reach. This was slow and proved to be unstable.

Zscaler, on the other hand, is more stable and also more secure.

The initial setup was straightforward. It wasn't complex at all.

My understanding was that the deployment itself happened pretty quickly.

There was an announcement from our security, and by our CSO. Then it was rolled out and Pulse Secure was turned off. There was a migration phase in the project and that's it. It all happened rather fast.

I don't handle billing or payments and therefore don't know the exact pricing of the solution of what exactly our organization pays.

I wasn't involved in the decision-making process when it came to looking for a solution.

We're just a customer.

I would recommend other users also have a glance at other solutions. Options like Prisma Access by Palo Alto or Check Point may be ideal, depending on the needs of the business.

Zscaler seems easy to understand and easy to use, however, there is probably some room for improvements. At my former company, we were using Check Point. This was also pretty good. Zscaler seems more modern, however, I'm referencing an experience from some 10 years ago.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

The primary use case is for organizations that have a lot of road warriors or very highly distributed small offices. It provides protection anywhere you are...whether you are in a hotel somewhere, or in Africa, it does not matter. You will get the Zscaler protection presence anywhere.

This solution helps you establish a secure connection from your laptop to the closest Zscaler point of presence. So, you have protection anywhere in the world. That's the advantage of it. You don't have to VPN all the way to your home office if you're half-the-world away. You go to the closest Zscaler connection and get your policies applied there. Its very powerful. Its great for anybody who has a lot of distributed work force, a lot of work from home people, or a lot of road warriors, that is where Zscaler shines.

The most valuable feature is the Zscaler protection from external threats. It scrubs everything, email, worms and root problems from websites. It is protection, particularly for distributors users and road warriors. Its very good. They're rated highest in secure web-data wise.

I do not have a problem with the stability of the product.

It is scalable. You can easily put new users and offices on it. It is cloud-based, so you do not run into a hardware limitation like you would with other products.

We used tech support when we first set up the solution. It was good.

It was very straightforward. Anyone with firewall familiarity will find it a simple process to download this solution.

The pricing is an issue. It is expensive if you have all of your users in the same location. It is expensive compared to other firewalls on the market.

We have made comparisons to Palo Alto and Cisco Miraki.

The solution's great, but you have to put it into context because of the pricing and the way it basically protects the device from anywhere. It is really more meant from highly distributed organizations, for organizations that have a lot of work from home and those with road warrior workers. That's what it is designed for.

The use cases of the solution are vast. CASB is a part of the product.

The solution has policies that work on client connectors. It’s pretty decent.

SSL inspection is a valuable feature.

The tool should improve the predefined dictionaries. The product should focus on improving its current features. They are good, but they need a lot of polishing.

I have been using the solution for almost a year. I am using the latest version of the solution.

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

The scalability of the tool is pretty good. I rate the scalability a nine and a half or ten out of ten.

The product must improve its support.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward. The solution is deployed on the cloud.

I see an ROI on the product.

The pricing is decent, but it is not that low. If we need any extra features, the price will increase.

People wanting to use the solution must not rely much on predefined dictionaries. I would recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use Zscaler for VPN connections and for internet security.

The internet security that it provides is valuable.

The VPN is valuable, as the whole technology is very different from a traditional VPN.

There are a few features that are not compatible with the Azure cloud.

It's not fully compatible with our environment because of the way that it is divided into business units. In order to get it working properly, there are some things that we had to put in for enhancements. Otherwise, everything works well.

We have been using Zscaler Internet Access for about a year.

It is a stable solution, although once or twice, we had issues with latency and slowness. Other than on these occasions, it has been fine.

Scalability-wise, everything is good. We have approximately 3,000 users and we do plan to increase usage. Ultimately, we want to include everyone, which is about 10,000 users.

We have been in contact with technical support and they are very responsive. They also have TAM support, which means that we have a dedicated engineer to look into our issues. That is nice to have.

I have used Cisco Umbrella in the past, which is similar. However, there are definitely differences between these two solutions. Cisco Umbrella is a DNS-based web filtering solution, whereas Zscaler is a cloud-based web application firewall combined with a regular firewall, antivirus, IPS, and other security features.

The initial setup is straightforward and the deployment took place over a couple of days.

We used Zscaler Professional Services for the deployment.

In summary, this is a good product and I completely recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The protection is most valuable.

The interface for administration could be better. They should upgrade the management portal.

Their support could also be better.

We have probably been using this solution for about three years. We are using its latest version. 

Its stability is reasonable. We've had a couple of outages, but overall, it has been okay.

Its scalability is fine.

It could be better.

It was probably in the middle in terms of complexity. Bits of it were easy, and bits of it were more complicated than we envisaged. I would rate it a three out of five in terms of the setup.

Its implementation probably took several weeks. It is deployed on-premises as well as on a public cloud.

We had involved a third party. It was a bit of a mix.

For the maintenance, there are about three people.

It is quite expensive. It does its job, but it is quite expensive for what we need.

Understand your use case and be sure of your technical ability to implement the policies.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

The solution is primarily used as a secure web gateway.

Overall, it's a good solution. 

We had very few issues during implementation.

Technical support is quite helpful and responsive once you get a hold of them. 

It has private access and has a lot of features inbuilt including DLP, CASB, et cetera. 

The solution is scalable and stable. 

The solution can be a bit pricey.

Sometimes, support isn't available. 

Zscaler does not have any local data centers. For example, if we have our customers in Czech Republic, in the Czech Republic they don't have their data center, as the local content, in the Czech language. They should do something in the Czech Republic and ensure that the language is accessible. They should have one data center as these people want to see the local content. Everyone wants to see their first language in the available content.

Also, in Brazil, they just have two data centers in São Paulo and they should consider expanding to other data centers.

When you check the logs, you cannot see what policy is allowed. That is one thing that is lacking. If I put someone's account in Zscaler, then it should show which policy it will be applicable for. For example, in Forcepoint we have that feature. This is something that Zscaler needs to add. They just need to put the account of some users and check whether they will be able to access that or not.

They don't have MFA, or multi-factor authentication, for admins.

I've used the solution for about one year and three or four months. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is very scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's on the cloud, which makes scaling easy.

The support is great. They helped us during implementation. 

When we ask for support, however, they reschedule the calls. Support guys are not always available. If I schedule the call for three to four days before, they will reschedule it. Sometimes, we'll join the call and they won't and then they'll just reschedule. That is something that has been disappointing. 

The implementation process was pretty straightforward. We did not run into issues. 

We did have some issues in that there were professional services that were purchased already, however, we came to know very late that we had any professional services support available from the vendor. We ended up handling things ourselves. The professional services were okay, however, they just were able to help us at a high level with recommendations.

The product is a bit expensive. That said, that is not in our scope to worry about pricing. 

We were integrated with Azure Identity. We are not sure if the client has their own data center or what they are using in that backend, or which cloud provider.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use it for security. We installed it on our work computers and also for other traffic from the office. We are using it for perimeter security and that is useful for us.

I will give you an example. Before implementing a computer scan on all PCs, our main problem was when we received a phish or something like it. It was impossible for us to tell if it was people from inside or outside our organization that clicked on it. If people that were inside our organization had different appliances for checking the traffic, you had to connect each appliance and get the receipt from that URL. It was a little bit complicated. With the scanner, for example, if somebody clicks on a bad URL you just add that to the reporting part and in a matter of minutes it generates a report, where you can see exactly who clicked on that link and who did something before you got a chance to block that malicious URL. That is the first benefit that comes to my mind and I think it was a huge improvement in our site. Having a centralized firewall that protects the whole topography is quite awesome when you also have users that are not on the plan because it actually improves visibility of those users.

I cannot say that I found only one feature that is most valuable, but I can tell you that I find value in traffic scanning and samples. That I think is quite valuable for all their software. The scanning feature is impressive, because they do not introduce a big latency to the traffic. I really like how they manage this part.

On the technical side, the only thing that I believe this scanner can improve is in the way they allocate traffic. For example, a big site doesn't have the ability to have its IPs inside the cloud, so Zscaler doesn't allocate you certain IPs for traffic. Your traffic goes to the nearest Zscaler point, and from there you get an IP. Sometimes that is problematic, because your users use the same IPs that another client is using so you don't get the ability to do some rules using some IPs. For example, you cannot use conditional access to high influence IP. You can't say if somebody goes to Zscaler I know that traffic is secure so I can let them past. In this scenario you cannot do this, because Zscaler is using a pool of IPs and they'll circle them for all the clients. I would like to see the ability to choose a pool of IPs for my company, set up rules based on them, and know that those IPs are not used by other companies.

We've been using Zscaler for 4 years.

The product is mature. I can't say it's not stable. It's been there for a while now and it proves that it can do the job according to what they say they do. I cannot say that they are not doing the best of what they think they should do. So at this point, they have a mature product and are working quite okay.

There are no issues there. The number of users doesn't matter, whether you have 100 users or 2,000 users. The only impact you'll have is on financial side. For 100 users you will pay differently than 10,000 users, so I don't think you have an issue on this side.

All our users have libraries on their computers. So if they have a device from the company, they have Zscaler on it. I think we have about 3,000 users in my company.

We have one or two people on maintenance from the global networking team. You don't need to do something special, it just works. The only thing we need to do is check daily if there are any threats, as well as to verify the US dollar and stuff like that. In terms of maintaining it, doing something to make it work, you don't have to worry about that. It's a cloud provided solution. The only thing that you have to concentrate upon is the business side. You have to see how your business is affected, what type of traffic you have in there, and check security threats on your site. That's it. The product by itself is run by the Zscaler team and they do a good job. We do not have maintenance debts. The only incidence that I remember is last month they were blocking our site or something , but that was solved quickly with support from Zscaler.

I did not get any experience directly, I got some instance of indirect support. I asked networking for something and they work directly with the support. My impression was that they responded quickly, relatively speaking. I don't know exactly how it works on the other side, but my impression indirectly was that they offer quick support.

no cloud solution and we had to route back to office the road warriors trafic 

From what I discussed with my colleagues from the network that we were working with, it wasn't a difficult process. I cannot tell you how long it took.

We didn't have a similar solution. We had a solution, but we didn't have something cloud-based as a security solution, so I would say we did not use any cloud security-based system.

Check if a product like this makes sense for you. And look at the specifics: what you need in terms of security and what features you would like to have in it. Zscaler is one solution. It's a good solution, but it doesn't do everything. First of all, analyze a few solutions and make a demo. Without a demo, I do not recommend moving forward, because any security solution comes with a price. There is also the financial price, to know if that is okay for your company. Usually Zscaler works best for companies that have users that do not stay in an office. They have road warriors. I would recommend it for companies that have a lot of users moving from here to there.

I would rate Zscaler as eight out of ten. It's not an ideal solution, one of the things is that I do not have my IP fully inside it. For example, you have countries where they don't have a lot of presence and then sometimes they go to another country where they have a presence or data center. When you come back to the other country, and you have to open a fiber, it can be geographically restrictive. I find my country and am going through by neighborhood. When I come back to my country, I cannot see it because I'm geographically restricted. I'm not part of that country, so that's one reason Zscaler isn't ideal.