This solution is for hybrid users who work from anywhere. It's like an end-user firewall. We can have restrictions on the end-user. If they come to the office, we have the infrastructure set up, and we can restrict access. 

But if they are connecting to the office from a personal network, like when working from home, we don't have any visibility. That is where Zscaler will help us get control over the end user. Wherever they are, on any network, the organization policy will be pushed to the end-user.

It is very beneficial in preventing the end-user system from being compromised. It can give visibility on the end user's internet access. If the user is accessing any malicious content, suspicious things, or phishing attacks, those things can be mitigated by using Zscaler. Those kinds of traffic will be blocked. That is one of the advantages.

If there are any issues at the network level, such as users working from home, then it is very hard to catch up with them and resolve issues on the end-user machine. 

If the user doesn't have internet access because of Zscaler... Sometimes, it might be a rare case, but it is very challenging for us to take action because they don't have internet. It can be difficult for us to troubleshoot.

The user accessibility; it is better to improve that for control accessing and configuring. It's very complicated to do the configuration. The IT job is a little bit complicated. Those who have the experience can do that. It's not easy or handy to use this tool.

It has good stability, and it is very secure in terms of security.  

Scalability is complicated. I would rate it an eight out of ten. It can support more than 10,000 end users.

We have used tech support to solve some kind of issues, network issues, or any product-level issues. We used to connect with the tech support of Zscaler.

Sometimes we used to get faster support. If it's an issue with the product level, then it will take some time. That's also fast only. The support is good from their end.

We used to use FortiSASE from Fortinet. It follows the same zero-trust security access concept. It is also in the same picture. But if you compare it to Zscaler, Zscaler is better compared to FortiGate.

Zscaler is very secure, and it has more features, like application segmentation, where only trusted users can access limited resources within the private environment.

The deployment time depends on the environment and how many users are there. For example, for a hundred users, we can complete the deployment within two weeks.

It can integrate with multiple third-party solutions like Microsoft for authentication purposes, and Splunk, QRadar, and any antivirus solutions if they have them. It is feasible to integrate with third parties so that we can get access together to protect the end-users and the environment.

It requires around ten people, dedicated engineers, to manage this.

From the security perspective, it has a layered approach for the connector. But with FortiGate, it's like simply connecting to the network, and it doesn't have that much security.

It is a little bit too costly because of the maintenance and the product scalability. It is a little bit costly compared to other products, and it has more features compared to them. That is where the pricing seems more.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It is recommended for hybrid users, where the work-from-anywhere concept is followed. It is very useful for them to get complete visibility on the end-user and to secure their environment by bridging from outside.

We use the solution to connect private applications in the data center or the SaaS applications on the cloud.

The solution is secure.

The connectivity could be faster. Sometimes, the issue is internal.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The product is pretty stable. It has a set of compliance that it follows. It is flexible. We can modify it according to our requirements. I rate the stability a nine out of ten. Sometimes, there are issues with the internet and cloud connectivity.

We have 500 users in our organization. The product is completely scalable. We can scale it up to 20,000 easily.

We contact the support team two or three times a year if we need to change some configuration. The technical team is good. The team works on our requests according to the priority levels assigned. The team calls us quickly if we raise a P1 request.

The tool is easy to deploy. We have to deploy the agent on the user’s machine. The agent takes 20 minutes to be installed. The tool is deployed in the data center. If the prerequisites are set up already, the product can be deployed in two or three hours.

It is a cloud-based solution. We need two support engineers and one senior resource with more than seven years of experience in networking to deploy and maintain the tool. We need one product manager for coordination.

The deployment can be done in-house.

The solution provides security. The users can access the application securely. The user experience is also good. The solution improves the latency and connectivity. When we connect through our legacy solution or VPN, we face delays. Zscaler is a fast solution.

Price is not a problem. We prefer Zscaler because it is a secure product.

We also evaluated Forcepoint. We did a POC and demo of the solutions. We evaluated the products based on the use cases and their performance. Then, we chose Zscaler.

Once the sales activity and upgrades were complete, we requested some licenses and started utilizing them. I will recommend the solution to others. Organizations must remove the bottlenecks and latency issues before converting from the legacy VPN connectivity to Zscaler. Otherwise, we will face some connectivity issues. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.