Presales Manager at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Reseller
Top 5
Oct 17, 2025
There is a mixed review on the integration part of Netskope Private Access. Wherever they have out-of-the-box support, it is quite easy to integrate. Wherever customization is needed, it depends on the openness of the application being integrated with. If the other application has an open architecture where you have easy API integrations, then it becomes easier. However, in some cases, it is a tedious task to do the integration where the application is not that open or it is not supported out-of-the-box from Netskope. They can introduce the DLP feature for Netskope Private Access. Zscaler has that DLP feature. It is in their roadmap, but currently, they don't have it. If they have data protection or data loss prevention within their NPA, that would be a significant advantage.
If we compare it with Zscaler, Netskope Private Access requires more configuration for setup of the overall solution. This is an area they can improve upon. Considering the competitive landscape we have today, they can further optimize the recurring subscription they offer as part of the proposal. This would give a better return on investment for customers.
Network Service Specialist at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Mar 7, 2025
Netskope Private Access could improve by enhancing visibility of user performance and application performance. It should also integrate wider DLP ( /categories/data-loss-prevention-dlp ) and inspection engines on private access traffic.
The solution needs to develop faster features. Its interoperability feature is not working. It takes six months to one year for any product to implement the improvements. However, the process should be faster to implement the changes quickly.
We faced certain issues with China users as it can be rather challenging for them due to the presence of Great Firewall. This is a major drawback, and it poses a significant issue for all our users in China.
Solution Architect, Cyber Security at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Sep 20, 2023
The main challenge we are facing across various Trust Network Access (TNA) technologies, including Netskope, is their inability to support broadcast applications or those relying on broadcasting protocols. These applications, such as security cameras and voice systems, require server-initiated connections, which TNA solutions, including Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), often do not handle well. This limitation becomes particularly problematic when dealing with legacy applications that have been in use for decades, featuring encryption, hashing, and other custom protocols that don't align with modern standards like HTTP version two.
Associate Presales Lead at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Jun 29, 2023
Netskope Private Access needs improvement in the on-premises check. When users are out of the network, it's self-explanatory that they will be connected to their private app via the network. The area for improvement is that Netskope Private Access currently supports only one DNS mapping for an IP address. This means that when users are on-premises, Netskope needs to turn off its Private Access tunnel since users can access the private apps locally. Currently, Netskope Private Access allows mapping only one DNS server. If a user uses a secondary DNS on-premises, Netskope fails to disconnect them. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.
I would like to see them go down the path of including SD-WAN. Currently, they don't do SD-WAN. If they could somehow natively do that inside of the platform, that would be amazing. I don't know if they're going to do it, but it would be amazing if they do.
Netskope Private Access is an integral component of the Netskope Security Cloud platform that provides zero-trust secure access to enterprise applications and data in hybrid IT (public cloud and data center) environments. It offers comprehensive policy management, compliance assessment, and supports any application, protocol, and device to reduce risk and simplify security operations.
There is a mixed review on the integration part of Netskope Private Access. Wherever they have out-of-the-box support, it is quite easy to integrate. Wherever customization is needed, it depends on the openness of the application being integrated with. If the other application has an open architecture where you have easy API integrations, then it becomes easier. However, in some cases, it is a tedious task to do the integration where the application is not that open or it is not supported out-of-the-box from Netskope. They can introduce the DLP feature for Netskope Private Access. Zscaler has that DLP feature. It is in their roadmap, but currently, they don't have it. If they have data protection or data loss prevention within their NPA, that would be a significant advantage.
If we compare it with Zscaler, Netskope Private Access requires more configuration for setup of the overall solution. This is an area they can improve upon. Considering the competitive landscape we have today, they can further optimize the recurring subscription they offer as part of the proposal. This would give a better return on investment for customers.
Netskope Private Access could improve by enhancing visibility of user performance and application performance. It should also integrate wider DLP ( /categories/data-loss-prevention-dlp ) and inspection engines on private access traffic.
The solution needs to develop faster features. Its interoperability feature is not working. It takes six months to one year for any product to implement the improvements. However, the process should be faster to implement the changes quickly.
We faced certain issues with China users as it can be rather challenging for them due to the presence of Great Firewall. This is a major drawback, and it poses a significant issue for all our users in China.
The main challenge we are facing across various Trust Network Access (TNA) technologies, including Netskope, is their inability to support broadcast applications or those relying on broadcasting protocols. These applications, such as security cameras and voice systems, require server-initiated connections, which TNA solutions, including Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), often do not handle well. This limitation becomes particularly problematic when dealing with legacy applications that have been in use for decades, featuring encryption, hashing, and other custom protocols that don't align with modern standards like HTTP version two.
The product is not easy to use. The product needs to be made easier to use.
Netskope Private Access needs improvement in the on-premises check. When users are out of the network, it's self-explanatory that they will be connected to their private app via the network. The area for improvement is that Netskope Private Access currently supports only one DNS mapping for an IP address. This means that when users are on-premises, Netskope needs to turn off its Private Access tunnel since users can access the private apps locally. Currently, Netskope Private Access allows mapping only one DNS server. If a user uses a secondary DNS on-premises, Netskope fails to disconnect them. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.
The cost has room for improvement. There are cheaper options available.
I would like to see them go down the path of including SD-WAN. Currently, they don't do SD-WAN. If they could somehow natively do that inside of the platform, that would be amazing. I don't know if they're going to do it, but it would be amazing if they do.