We performed a comparison between Netskope Private Access and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ZTNA as a Service solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup of Netskope Private Access is pretty simple and straightforward."
"In the VPN scenario, what was happening, the user would get back to the complete source. But in NPA, the application will go to the user. There is an outbound connection. There is no inbound. Storage providers are also not there. It's the best feature because it is the replacement of the VPN."
"In the firewall, we don't have a user-based policies list, and we can't create them. Netskope helps us to create user-based policies. For example, if there are specific teams like HR or more than nine teams, and we want logs from access over particular URLs, and we don't want to allow that specific URL for certain users, we can create these policies in Netskope. It's handy, easy to use for new users, and has a cool GUI interface. We can create multiple policies, and as for the proxy, it's a leading solution."
"It is a stable solution."
"Even without extensive training, if you're a proficient IT professional, you can easily configure it."
"The base features have been fantastic. The ability to be able to granularly assign application access to end-users has been really good."
"Netskope enables users to securely access private applications remotely without a VPN."
"The product's scalability is good."
"The most valuable feature of Zscaler Private Access is we do not have to connect to a VPN, it is seamless. It is more convenient for us because we use one agent to cover the internet and VPN access."
"The scalability of the solution is great."
"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."
"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."
"The product's most valuable features are cloud-based services and secure internet access. We don't have to set up any physical appliances."
"It has some good data security and WIP features, providing secure Internet access."
"I like the web filtering capabilities."
"It is easy to use."
"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."
"I would rate the stability around seven out of ten. Sometimes, we face some difficulty, but it depends upon the complexity of the environment."
"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."
"The ability to provide more security around agentless access has room for improvement."
"The cost has room for improvement."
"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 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."
"Netskope Private Access only supports TCP and UDP ports and does not support ICMP or ping."
"Conflicts arise if you do not have the same management teams on the product."
"There is improvement in enhancing proper manageability, policies, and logs. So, log management could be improved."
"Setup is a bit complex because there are many steps that need to be taken before onboarding and activating the solution."
"There could be more DLP-related features. Additionally, there needs to be flexibility for integrating ISP features."
"The interface needs a bit of work."
"Zscaler Private Access needs to improve its collaboration with applications without compromising security."
"The menu for the ZIA portal could be organized a little bit differently. The most-used modules should be at the top of the menus, not somewhere near the bottom, some of them are not organized well in my opinion."
"To enhance their offering, it is advisable for them to focus on strengthening the foundation of their architecture. Additionally, they should consider integrating a broader range of services that go beyond what managed service providers typically offer independently."
Netskope Private Access is ranked 7th in ZTNA as a Service with 14 reviews while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is ranked 1st in ZTNA as a Service with 35 reviews. Netskope Private Access is rated 8.6, while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Netskope Private Access writes "Provides network visibility, infrastructure protection and advanced security protections, especially the DLP (Data Loss Protection)". 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". Netskope Private Access is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Appgate SDP, Cisco Secure Client, Jamf Connect and Google BeyondCorp Remote Access, whereas Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Axis Security, Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) and Cisco Umbrella. See our Netskope Private Access vs. Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange report.
See our list of best ZTNA as a Service 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.
