Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Zscaler Internet Access vs iboss comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
8.8
Iboss customer service is praised for responsiveness, knowledge, efficiency, excellent support, proactive problem-solving, and dedicated account management.
No sentiment score available
They are very fast, responsive, and knowledgeable.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
4.8
IBoss users seek improved reporting, security features, cloud integration, higher network capacity, intuitive configurations, and more efficient customer support.
No sentiment score available
It is not as intuitive as the rest of the platform.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
iBoss provides scalable solutions for seamless bandwidth adjustment, supporting global expansion and efficient management of significant user loads.
No sentiment score available
We have flexibility with our primary and backup nodes if there's a large amount of web traffic.
 

Setup Cost

Sentiment score
6.4
Iboss offers competitive, transparent pricing with a per-user model, simplifying cost forecasting and enhancing budget predictability for enterprises.
No sentiment score available
It offers the same features you would get from a vendor that charges 250,000 British pounds for a fraction of the price.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
iboss is highly stable with minimal issues; cloud transition improves performance, earning high stability ratings from users.
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
7.7
Iboss provides scalable cloud security with advanced features like content filtering, SSL inspection, and seamless integration, enhancing user protection.
No sentiment score available
The solution's mental health function can detect if someone needs help.
 

Categories and Ranking

iboss
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
13th
Ranking in Internet Security
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Web Content Filtering (4th), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (8th), ZTNA as a Service (13th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (10th)
Zscaler Internet Access
Ranking in Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
2nd
Ranking in Internet Security
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Q&A Highlights

it_user822630 - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 06, 2019
 

Featured Reviews

Jack Hamm - PeerSpot reviewer
We experienced benefits immediately but the report generation is lagging
iboss excels on the networking side but lags slightly behind competitors like Zscaler and Netskope in terms of security feature parity. I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention. Using iboss for DLP instead of traditional endpoint solutions is preferable, but its current feature set requires some clunky workarounds. I'd also like to see better integration of DLP into the platform. Additionally, while it's improving, reporting can be slow at times. This is problematic when generating reports for executives who expect them immediately. I'd like to see further improvements in reporting speed and efficiency.
Bhaskar Rao - PeerSpot reviewer
It offers us a single point of control, but we've had some problems with performance
We use Zscaler as a secure internet proxy. All of the traffic is filtered through it. We have about 3,000 users at the organization.  All internet traffic goes through Zscaler, which protects the organization's IP, which isn't published publicly. Zscaler's cloud services filter and clear all…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Web Gateways (SWG) solutions are best for your needs.
816,192 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

it_user822630 - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 6, 2019
Mar 6, 2019
IT really depends on the type of business you had currently. These days almost all security vendors are offering Virtual Appliances so it's a preference based decision. Almost all vendors are offering basic features with some add-ons / additional features with differences among others competitors. Look at 1. FortiGate, 2. Cisco Meraki, 3. SOPHOS Products they all provide you flexibility to have...
2 out of 63 answers
it_user519153 - PeerSpot reviewer
Feb 28, 2018
There are several factors to consider: · In-house expertise to manage a physical firewall · Number of locations requiring a firewall · Current and planned linkage between office locations · Value of the information you want to protect I’m personally a fan of on-premise physical firewalls for high $ information to protect. However, if the $ risk is not particularly high, your in-house expertise to manage firewalls is low, and you have multiple locations to protect, I would recommend a security gateway service with VPN connections between your offices and the location of the security provider. I cannot recommend one supplier over another. If you choose to go with a physical firewall, Fortigate has a good reputation. Regards,
it_user351612 - PeerSpot reviewer
Feb 28, 2018
Depending what is your goal and where offices are based. When you want to protect your users in offices, then you would want to have kind of perimeter firewall (usually appliance) - standard (old) way. Fortinet is affordable and OK. When you wan't better check Palo Alto Networks. In case your offices are close (in milliseconds) to Zscaler cloud then you could also use this. Ask them to share information of their "cloud" locations and measure RTT from your offices. Note that all your traffic will go via Zscaler cloud (privacy, confidentiality). With Fortinet or similar appliance, you have possibilty to have VPN for your users with home office. Not sure when it's feasible with cloud solution from Zscaler. Like said really depends on where you are, what kind of business you are doing.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Educational Organization
23%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about iboss?
Content filtering is the most useful feature of iboss.
What needs improvement with iboss?
I have the same complaint about them that I have about other software companies. Sometimes when you call in support, you get someone who is just following a sheet. It feels like a runaround. You fe...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
We are a PreK-12 public school district, and we use iboss to filter internet content for our students at home and staff member devices to ensure they do not access inappropriate sites.
Which is the better security solution - Cisco Umbrella or Zscaler?
Cisco Umbrella and Zscaler Internet Access are two broad-spectrum Internet security solutions that I have tried. Zscaler Internet Access is a good option for carrying out multiple security functi...
Which is better, Zscaler internet access or Netsckope CASB?
We researched Netskope but ultimately chose Zscaler. Netskope is a cloud access security broker that helps identify and manage cloud applications, protecting your sensitive data from exfiltration....
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
ZIA
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

More than 4,000 global enterprises trust the iboss Cloud Platform to support their modern workforces, including a large number of Fortune 50 companies.
Ulster-Greene ARC, BanRegio, HDFC, Ralcorp Holdings Inc., British American Tobacco, Med America Billing Services Inc., Lanco Group, Aquafil, Telefonica, Swisscom, Brigade Group
Find out what your peers are saying about Zscaler Internet Access vs. iboss and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
816,192 professionals have used our research since 2012.