For a secured web gateway in my company, everything revolves around Netskope CASB and Netskope DLP. I mostly use the tool for cloud access and to ensure a secure web gateway.

The most valuable feature of the product stems from the fact that there is a list of all Netskope POPs, which is the point of presence spread throughout the world. When you work on the backbone of the tool, you can break out, meaning you don't have to come back to your original service provider and then go to your new service provider to use the tool on the internet. If I am in the US or the UK, I can break out at that POP when using Netskope, so I don't need to come back onto my network and go back through my network again to access the product.

The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required.

Netskope is a good product. The tool has a whole new list of features that have come out now, but I have not checked them out.

The product's reporting capabilities have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required.

The solution's technical support response time is an area that needs to be improved.

I have been using Netskope for seven years. I don't use the product for my customers.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The uptime offered by the solution is around 99.99 percent.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product is mostly used in medium to enterprise-sized organizations.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was simple since a user basically just needs an agent to be rolled out.

The solution can be deployed very quickly. It may take you a bit of time to set up the rules, but the rollout of the product to its customers is very quick.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud.

It is an expensive solution.

The customers' budget may influence whether they would choose Palo Alto Networks, Palo Alto Networks K2-Series, or Netskope. I think Palo Alto Networks focuses on offering a bit more enterprise-oriented products, and I would probably also go with medium-sized companies since it is easier to administer than Netskope. Netskope and Palo Alto Networks offer the same functionalities, and it is all about support and implementation.

Palo Alto Networks has more integrations with other products, meaning it has a bigger integration stack with other products, which Netskope doesn't offer. With Palo Alto Networks, I can use EDR and all of its other tools, which Netskope doesn't offer. If I look at things from a consolidated view and consider my customer's requirements in terms of price and cost, then Palo Alto Networks would probably be preferable over Netskope.

It is possible to organize a secured web gateway with the use of Netskope.

In terms of the most efficient real-time data protection related to Netskope, it is possible for users to set up DLP rules in real time.

I have experience with Netskope's analytics and reporting capabilities. The product's analytics part is pretty fine.

I rate the overall product a seven and a half to eight out of ten.

Netskope is an efficient, reliable, and easy-to-manage solution. It goes very granular in blocking some of the features in third-party cloud solutions, like share or download.

Netskope could further onboard new SaaS-based platforms into their CASB solutions. Netskope already has its in-build capabilities, but some might be missing.

From the reverse proxy side, Netskope needs to be more reliable for Microsoft Azure customers. They are still dependent on Microsoft access control from SaaS. It would be good if they could remove this dependency because some customers don't have P1 licenses.

We need Microsoft capabilities to access reverse proxies because it depends on that. Users logging in to their SaaS solution and not using the Netskope agent cannot use this reverse proxy feature. The solution's documentation still needs to be improved.

I have been using Netskope for two years.

I rate Netskope a nine out of ten for stability.

Netskope should improve its customer support in terms of technicality and response time.

The solution’s initial setup is quick and easy.

Netskope is not as expensive as Palo Alto. On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

We usually sell Netskope because it's a unified platform for SWG, DLP capabilities, and CASB. Netskope is a strong leader in CASB and has integrated other parts like SWG and NPA. Netskope is a cloud-based solution.

Netskope is a very granular product, and you can do a lot of things with it. Microsoft doesn't onboard all the third-party SaaS-based providers. It doesn't have any granularity to build policies.

Netskope is more suitable for small to medium businesses.

Overall, I rate Netskope an eight out of ten.

I use Netskope in my company for data protection and governance.

The most valuable features of the solution are that the support is very good and the dashboards are easy and intuitive to use.

With Netskope in our company, we want to integrate it with the other applications in our system practically. From an improvement perspective, the aforementioned process should be made easier. The solution's implementations can be made much easier because, currently, it is complex in nature.

I have been using Netskope for three years. I use the solution's latest version.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In our company, we have around 1,00,000 users of the solution.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with other products in the past, but I cannot discuss those products.

The implementation part takes some time due to the complexities involved. In general, our company puts in a lot of effort, especially in coordination, to manage the solution's implementation.

In our company, we did not measure the actual time taken to implement the solution, but the overall time taken to implement the solution was around six months.

The solution is deployed on a public cloud.

I cannot disclose the licensing costs attached to the solution. Netskope is a reasonably priced product, but it is not so expensive because there are other products in the market that are more expensive. I rate the product's price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is low price.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

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.