We performed a comparison between Perimeter 81 and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks, Cisco and others in ZTNA as a Service."The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"The solution is stable."
"On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"Our operators can work from home without any problems."
"The benefits are really built into the underlying protocol, however, Perimeter81 makes these available in a user-friendly way."
"The ease of use not only translates to quick adoption rates - it also ensures that our employees remain compliant with our cybersecurity protocols, enhancing the overall security posture of our organization."
"The feature that I have found to be most valuable is the reputation that the company has regarding privacy. Nowadays, this is critical, especially when you do all of your work online."
"It is a scalable solution."
"SD-WAN is one of the primary solutions offered by Perimeter 81."
"Scaling Perimeter 81 was easy to do."
"Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful."
"The most valuable features of Zscaler Private Access are its ability to integrate with multiple IDPs and application segmentation."
"The user interface of Zscaler Private Access is excellent. With proper knowledge and expertise, one can efficiently handle intricate enterprise environments without feeling overwhelmed. This leads to exceptional productivity for managed service providers. The user experience is remarkably streamlined, enabling the management of even the most complex enterprise setups without any excessive complications."
"With SASE, we have a single platform that covers multiple task services with which we need to control access. All the features are equally valuable."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to establish connectivity for remote users and remote endpoints. It offers a high level of granularity compared to typical VPNs, which also encapsulate a lot of I/O."
"Sandboxing, DLP, and SSL inspection engine are the most valuable features of Zscaler SASE."
"I like its ease of use. It has a single pane of glass for the ZIA and ZPA pieces. It is very manageable. It is also very easy to deploy for secure access, and it gives half-decent coverage for visibility in terms of what the users use and what data is being proxied through the access gateway."
"The VPN is great for the stability on offer and for the cloud updates and insights you can get."
"I like the web filtering capabilities."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"Perimeter 81 could enhance its reporting and analytics capabilities to provide more detailed insights into network activity."
"One of the more negative experiences using Perimeter 81 is the fact that I am logged off after a pre-determined amount of time which cuts off access to some of my company's resources."
"Offering in-app explanations detailing what each feature does, its benefits and potential use cases can help users better understand and utilize the tool to its full potential."
"There are a few areas where the solution could be improved. For instance, we sometimes encounter connectivity issues, which can be problematic. Recently, I experienced a connectivity issue while trying to move to Azure. Connectivity issues can be quite frustrating."
"I don't know if it is technically feasible, however, if the Desktop App could be used as a Web App or a Chrome Extension it would be very nice."
"I would suggest adding more networking and security features that allow more customization within their platform."
"I'd love to learn more about all of the features. Maybe a monthly spotlight of features or having a banner that explains more ways certain features could be used would be helpful."
"In the future, maybe P81 can improve the network traffic balancing and redundancy."
"Setup is a bit complex because there are many steps that need to be taken before onboarding and activating the solution."
"It has massive room for improvement. The Zscaler product itself is okay, but it doesn't give enough granularity for us as an organization to stipulate rules or processes, especially for data-driven services. For instance, we can stick on SSL inspection, but it's just a click box. It doesn't allow us to go any further into the detail of the SSL inspection. We also can't pull it out without having an additional logging server. It just doesn't give us enough granularity. They should give us more control over the interfaces because it is all backend. They weren't very open to discussing their backend architecture with us in terms of their own data centers. They can maybe a little bit more open about what components are there and how the backend infrastructure works alongside Zscaler. Its licensing can be better. Some of the additional licensing costs are quite high, and they should have certain features ready and available as a baseline rather than having to purchase additional licenses for it. Their support should also be improved. I initially had a consultant from Zscaler for its deployment, but the support that I had throughout the deployment of the project wasn't the best."
"There is improvement in enhancing proper manageability, policies, and logs. So, log management could be improved."
"We often face performance and latency issues with Zscaler SASE."
"The DX layer could be better if it had improved visibility."
"Zscaler Private Access could improve by improving external access. If external parties want to access locally to my company's services, we need to onboard them into our domain, otherwise, it doesn't work. Additionally, if their company also has Zscaler Private Access, then it doesn't work. They need to log in with our domain ID, not their company ID."
"It would be better if the Zscaler Private Access team made it easier for people to find subscriptions on the portal, mainly information on what my customers subscribed to or the type of licenses purchased."
"More on-prem infrastructure is required when Zscaler Private Access is to be implemented as a single point of entry."
Perimeter 81 is ranked 5th in ZTNA as a Service with 22 reviews while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is ranked 1st in ZTNA as a Service with 34 reviews. Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2, while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange writes "Allows for strict access control, granting access to specific applications at a URL level rather than at the physical IP level". Perimeter 81 is most compared with Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access, Tailscale and Netgate pfSense, whereas Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Axis Security, Cloudflare Access and OpenVPN Access Server.
See our list of best ZTNA as a Service vendors and best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) vendors.
We monitor all ZTNA as a Service reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.