We use the solution to track role-based access control. We have many business-critical applications, particularly task-based applications, on the cloud.

Netskope provides audit trends for all accesses via KSP and the identification of Shadow IT.

Today, buying a server or hosting an application is very easy. Anyone can buy an instance by paying on AWS or Google. Due to this, there are many applications within the organization that IT is not even aware of because someone in business might have bought one without IT's knowledge. The perspectives of these two groups are very different, and that's the issue.

The solution’s cost is not user-friendly. If you buy the full version, it is costly.

I have been using Netskope as a customer for two or three years.

The product is stable.

3500 end users are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We switched to Netskope since it comes with the Secure Web Gateway package.

The initial setup is simple and takes a couple of weeks to complete. The deployment requires eight people to complete.

I rate the setup a seven on a scale of ten.

We evaluated Forcepoint, Digital Guardian, and Symantec for testing.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It's one of the top-ranking solutions in the market, and it's very responsive. We are using Netskope, and Netskope provides a load of features for SQL, STP, and traffic control.

We have blocked all data-sharing websites like Gmail, Google Drive, and Dropbox. We have also blocked them globally in broadband and Capitec. We are ISO certified, so we use a bunch of tools that we use, so that's why we are using a pro product that is number one in Gartner.

If we need to allow a process that is blocked by Netskope, we have to manually check the logs to see why it is blocked. This can be time-consuming and inefficient.

So, I would like to have a feature in Netskope that allows them to manually check the logs without having to open a separate tool.  

I have been using this solution for last two years. 

It's a stable product. However, when I implemented it two years ago, it had a lot of issues for us because all things were blocked users were facing a lot of issues regarding website-related issues, and some developers were also facing some issues. 

But now it's fine. The user process has improved. Some developers are using PowerShell code to get related, and all processes are unblocked. So, we've developed an ID to allow the related process. Now, it's stable.

There are around 2,000 end users using this solution. It is a scalable solution.

The customer service and support are good. They are available on weekends.

We used Symantec before for DLP solution, device control, and proxy solution. All three things were only in Symantec, but Symantec is not a SaaS-based product. If your users come to the premises or over the VPN, that means it works, otherwise, it doesn't work or there is no control. So that's why we moved to NetScope as it's a service product, and the cost associated with it is also less.

The initial setup is very easy. 

We have deployed it on a private cloud. We have a single URL, and we have created a username and password. We have also created a load of policies like a secure web gateway and global talk. We have blocked global talk like Gmail, WhatsApp, and Yahoo. If you use a requirement, we can allow it only.

The licensing cost is good for the features. It's about $35 per user per year.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

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.

Netskope has a diverse portfolio range, which includes cloud access security brokers, content filtering, behavior analytics, and security management. 

Netskope needs to improve its stability. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

Netskope is a scalable product. My company's 30 percent of the workforce is using the product. 

The tool's technical support is good. They have premium support options and will reach back very quickly. 

Positive

My company used Netskope because it is user-friendly and has seamless deployment. It has its own cloud and is not reliant on other private cloud providers like AWS. 

A new user will encounter moderate difficulty while deploying the solution. Deployment is easy for a person with a networking background. 

The tool's pricing is not too cheap or expensive. However, it can be costly for a small business. 

I rate Netskope an eight 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.

Our one use case involved shadow IT. We had numerous cloud applications being used by the business without the IT team's awareness. A lot of data was being exchanged with these cloud applications. 

Another use case centered around our corporate applications, specifically Google Workspace. We integrated Google Workspace with Netskope to protect our cloud usage and data, including email IDs and Google Drive storage.

These are the use cases we applied the tools to.

The benefits revolved around effectively addressing the use cases using Netskope. Regardless of user location, as long as they were connected to the internet, their data remained protected at all times. These were the major benefits we obtained.

The most valuable features were related to discovery, data protection, and ensuring compliance with regulations.

In my previous organization, we heavily used Netskope. We employed Netskope for all our cloud applications and for managing shadow IT. So, for any applications we had in the cloud, we used Netskope to retrieve details about shadow IT. On top of it, we employed it to safeguard the data on those cloud applications.

I used Netskope five months ago. I changed organizations around five months ago. But prior to that, I was using Netskope. I have used it for approximately four years. I worked with the latest version.

It is a stable solution. From a solution perspective, I didn't face any challenges. However, there were operational matters that we managed on a day-to-day basis.

It is a scalable solution.

Approximately around 30,000 end users are using this solution.

We've encountered numerous cases. Whenever we came across functional or technical issues, we raised questions with the technical support team.

I would describe customer service and support as decent. Our technical account manager always got involved when we raised concerns, ensuring proper escalation so we got a timely resolution.

The first setup process was pretty simple. You just have to integrate the solution with cloud workspaces and applications and it is easily accomplished.

The deployment was a collaborative effort. We engaged both the vendor and third-party assistance. Our in-house team used relevant intelligence to ensure successful deployment.

Two major teams were primarily involved: the InfoSec team and the IT team. The InfoSec team covered the solution and helped the IT team with configuring best practices. Additionally, we had a partner team that implemented the solution for us.

For deployment, we followed a straightforward approach. First, we identified our known applications and domains and then planned how to integrate our account users with Netskope. Next, we used the discovery module to identify shadow IT instances. Finally, we configured policies, initially placing them in monitoring mode. Once the tools matured, we transitioned those policies from monitoring to protective mode.

The maintenance was easy. 

Pricing depends on customer relationships, negotiations, and partner involvement. Each product owner has their own licensing terms, which all play into the overall cost because they involve a partner. Overall, it depends on the negotiation skills.

Netskope's pricing is reasonable compared to Microsoft. Microsoft tends to sell individual licenses as bundles. For instance, if you're using licenses like E3 versus E5, E3 offers limited functionality, while E5 provides a bundle. Microsoft's pricing is somewhat higher, considering Netskope's capabilities as well.

I have experience with a few other solutions, like Symantec and Microsoft, but my involvement with those was limited. Netskope was the major focus.

If you're heavily invested in Microsoft, Microsoft KSP might be the way to go. Otherwise, you might consider Netskope. So, it is dependent on the infrastructure.

I'd suggest that any company not heavily dependent on Microsoft could consider starting with Netskope. Cloud journey also matters; if you're deeply involved in the cloud, Netskope is a good solution to safeguard your cloud data.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I deduced two points: one for their feature modification and one for the feature maturity of the solution.

We use the product for cloud application access.

The product's integration with VMware Workspace ONE could be improved. Additionally, they could add endpoint security features similar to Trend Micro.

We have been using the platform for 18 months.

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

It is a very scalable tool.

The technical support team takes too long to reply for different time zones. We have to give them all the information from the beginning per their protocol every time.

Neutral

It is a SaaS-based solution and is deployed on the cloud. It is very fast to deploy. We took three months to complete as we had to make many changes to the previous version. I rate the process a seven out of ten.

The product's price is average. We are receiving a competitive offer from Trend Micro Apex One. So, we are evaluating it.

We are evaluating Trend Micro Apex One.

I advise others to make an inventory of all the cloud apps. They should ensure all the shadow IT instances are included in their policies.

I rate the platform an eight out of ten.