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

Netskope vs Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 6, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

iboss
Sponsored
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
7th
Ranking in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
8th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (5th), Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), ZTNA as a Service (8th)
Netskope
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
3rd
Ranking in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Prisma Access by Palo Alto ...
Ranking in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB)
1st
Ranking in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (4th), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (6th), ZTNA as a Service (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) category, the mindshare of iboss is 2.1%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Netskope is 12.1%, up from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is 14.8%, down from 18.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks14.8%
Netskope12.1%
iboss2.1%
Other71.0%
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
 

Featured Reviews

Matt Crockford - PeerSpot reviewer
It's easy to roll out, and their understanding of our business made it seamless
One aspect we value about iboss is its simplicity. Their customer service is brilliant, and they are super responsive and knowledgeable. It's easy to roll out, and their understanding of our business made it seamless. We were impressed by the solution's mental health function, which can detect if someone needs help. It scans what users are browsing and flags warning signs so we can check to see if they are okay. We've had to use it a couple of times. The user interface is highly intuitive. Our IT team picked it up with minimal training. It's arranged so that it's easy to find where things are. Another advantage is the single pane of glass console, which gives you visibility into what's happening. We're not fully there yet because we haven't implemented zero trust, but we're excited about the possibilities from the demos we've seen. We launched a POC of iboss' ChatGPT Risk Protection feature two weeks ago. AI is a great tool, but you need to be careful what you put into it. My biggest fear is employees inputting sensitive corporate information or customer PII data into one of these chatbots. I was impressed by our trial of the feature. It's exactly what we wanted. Now, when a user goes to ChatGPT, there's a banner warning them not to share information, and we can block conversations containing customer data like bank details and email addresses. I don't want to stop people from using it, but we need visibility. We've only tried it on a test group of 15 people. You can configure it to look for specific keywords or integrate it with your DLP policy if you have that configured
Benjamin Naranjo - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides secure remote access and web navigation protection with highly customizable features
The most helpful features in Netskope are the data loss prevention module, the anti-malware module, and the integration that it has with Information Rights Management from Microsoft. It has better categorization and more granular features regarding web protection, as it allows me to control HTTP methods. I can publish WhatsApp web for my users as read-only, for example. Other providers cannot; they are only on and off, and do not have the granularity for a website to be read-only. That comes with a downside, which is that they need to regularly update their controls to support those features in those websites.
Roberto Pastorino - PeerSpot reviewer
Have supported client adoption of security solutions but need more control over infrastructure
It's a working solution. It's not the easiest, but no DLP solution is easy. With Netskope, the whole infrastructure is proprietary. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is using a service in AWS, and it's not totally a proprietary infrastructure. Sometimes a third-party outage could impact the whole operability. I'm not certain if the vendor is moving towards sovereignty of infrastructure at this moment, but from what I saw in the past, there was this reliance on third parties for the infrastructure: AWS, GCP, Oracle, and others. This is one point of attention for me. I would prefer more proprietary infrastructure.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"iboss is among the few products providing inline filtering where no application is needed on the device."
"Its initial setup was straightforward."
"We chose iboss for both zero trust and proxy (SWG) because their SWG was superior."
"It was a very easy product to install. It can be deployed very fast."
"I would definitely recommend iboss for web filtering purposes to other organizations or individuals."
"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."
"The security aspect of the solution, particularly the malware behind it, is excellent. That's something that really helped us out. It's not just a simple proxy that just blocks the insights of potential threats that come on behind it. They do malware detection and that helps us a lot."
"The solution has massively improved our security posture, giving us full visibility into what our staff does online."
"The automation offered by the product is pretty solid."
"Netskope is an efficient, reliable, and easy-to-manage solution."
"The feature that I like best is the GUI."
"Netskope is a really good product. I cannot segregate which features are the most valuable. We find most of the features to be valuable. It gives us what we are looking for."
"Netskope has positively impacted our organization by securing all our systems, and the response time is also less, with a high catch rate for any incident."
"The initial setup is straightforward"
"The interface is good."
"Netskope is cloud-native, enabling differentiation of tenants in cloud applications, whether they are enterprise or personal, and provides control over shadow IT access."
"Palo Alto Firewall is one of the best firewalls in the world."
"The solution improved the consistency of our security controls and the BCP. There has been a 20 percent reduction in TCO. Prisma Access also enabled us to deliver better applications by centralizing security management."
"The scalability of the solution is excellent."
"Its frontend is user-friendly. It is easy to use for us."
"The Autonomous Digital Experience Management (ADEM) offered by Palo Alto is a good reporting tool. It gives insights into how things are going within the network. It takes all the data from the users' endpoints and does an analysis, and it suggests changes as well."
"The solution's most valuable features were the model's reduced complexity on the client side and its capability to provide security."
"Prisma Access protects all app traffic, so that users can gain access to all apps and that's very important because we need to be able to access everything. It also allows us to access non-web apps; anything internal that we need access to, we can access."
"Prisma Access provides comprehensive security. It provides URL filtering, application control, SSL, DLP, etc. It provides complete security for the cloud environment."
 

Cons

"One thing I would like to see differently with their Zero Trust platform is that some of the AI aspects related to high-risk activities have more false positives."
"Iboss is growing so fast that it is often hard for them to keep up with the challenges."
"For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company ExxonMobil."
"Their on-premise hardware's network interface is capped at one gigabit, which is sort of a problem. If you stand a filter up where all traffic flows through that, according to them, in order to go above a gigabit, you have to have multiple devices, which in today's IT seems a little bit silly. They could easily put in an SFP port into their device that could accommodate 10 gigs or at least offer a box."
"The reporting feature needs improvement. It doesn't give you the expected results. It is quite difficult to get the specific reports needed, and it is not as intuitive as the rest of the platform."
"I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention."
"Sometimes when you call in support, you get someone who is just following a sheet. It feels like a runaround. You feel that you are running into that support wall."
"Our iboss subscription access should be more secure with an OTP or VPN etc. It is easy to gain access if, for example, hackers obtain my username and password."
"Netskope's pricing is very high compared to other vendors, and compared to Zscaler, Netskope has less capability."
"Deployment and policy tweaking were two areas where improvement needs to be made."
"The limitations in Zero Trust's publisher sessions are a concern. Currently, it supports only between 15,000 to 32,000 sessions."
"In terms of improvements, the possibility to export the dashboards or the data directly to Power BI would be better."
"Netskope CASB can improve by working more similarly to a VPN technology instead of a proxy. They then could have visibility on the endpoint device. Most clients have some tools where they check the endpoint health or other things, such as the security posture, or if they want to access the resources. For example, if they should have antivirus running, this kind of posture check should be available but it is missing."
"The solution's implementations can be made much easier because, currently, it is complex in nature."
"It should have user behavior analysis and diverse analysis."
"They could improve their mobile agents as they have some limitations."
"Its integration with non-Palo Alto products can be improved. Currently, it is easy to integrate it with other Palo Alto products such as Cortex XDR. It integrates well with other Palo Alto products. A major part of our network is based on Palo Alto products, but for those companies that use multi-vendor products in their infrastructure, Palo Alto should optimize the integration of Prisma Access with the network devices from other vendors."
"It's not very easy to use. Sometimes it's buggy and there are problems when doing updates. The user interface is okay, but some configuration items are difficult. I would like it to be less buggy and easier to configure, to better streamline the user experience."
"There is a lack of integration with third-party solutions like CrowdStrike or SentinelOne in Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks. Although they have a tight ecosystem with their products, opening up for integration with other solutions would be beneficial."
"There is room for improvement in the multi-environment visibility, especially around containers."
"Better integration with the MDM solution would be useful."
"Palo Alto's operational and support model needs improvement since we have faced issues with resolving problems."
"Prisma would be a stronger solution if it could aggregate resources by project or by application. So say we have an application we've developed in AWS and five applications we've developed in Azure. The platform will group it according to those applications, but it's based on the tags we use in Azure, which means I have to rely on development teams to tag resources properly."
"They automatically update and they should give us time to fully understand what they're updating so that we can make sure it doesn't impact production."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"We had the cost of purchasing a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs. However, the following year, the cost of just licensing was similar to what was paid the previous year for a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs."
"It is not expensive, and it is also not cheap. iboss is priced right in the sweet spot for the number of features it offers."
"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
"It is expensive compared to one of its competitors."
"I rate the product's price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is low price."
"Netskope is a premium service, and its pricing ranges from medium to expensive."
"I recall that the price was considerably cheaper than that of Zscaler. It was around 60,000 AUD for 1,000 users per year and included some training and some premier support offerings. If we wanted to take advantage of the CASB capabilities, then there was an additional subscription fee, for which we didn't have the budget. On price, I would give Netskope a three or four out of five because it's quite expensive, but it offers a lot of value."
"The product's price is average."
"The pricing is competitive."
"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."
"Licensing fees are paid annually."
"Netskope's pricing is reasonable compared to Microsoft."
"It is a little expensive. Because it is one of the best in the market, it is a little bit more expensive than other vendors."
"As compared to other solutions, Prisma Access is much cheaper. It is probably 30% to 40% cheaper than other solutions, but I do not know the exact cost."
"It is pretty expensive. We have to balance the cost of some features. They need to work on some of the services and products, price-wise."
"I'm still comparing, but the solution is quite expensive."
"The solution requires a license and the technical support has extra costs. The licensing model could improve."
"The licensing cost is about 18,000 euros."
"There's no reason not to buy the enterprise version that gives you unlimited PoPs, but you must understand the limitations you impose on yourself if you do that. If you go crazy, that allowlist will be too big for Kubernetes clusters."
"This is not an expensive product and everything is included with one license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) solutions are best for your needs.
872,846 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
5%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise25
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise27
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?
For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company Exxon...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
Previously when I used iboss, we did the POC for iboss for ExxonMobil. Four or five people wanted to move from our ol...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for iboss?
Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, iboss is not cheap, and that's my only concern. There are cheaper alte...
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 ...
What do you like most about Netskope CASB?
The product's analytics part is pretty fine.
What is the better solution - Prisma Access or Zscaler Private Access?
We looked into Prisma Access before choosing Zscaler Private Access (ZPA). Palo Alto’s Prisma Access is a secure ac...
What do you like most about Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks?
The most valuable features of the solution are in the areas of the secure remote access it provides while also being ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks?
From my experience, Palo Alto is more expensive compared to solutions like Netskope and Triscale.
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Netskope CASB
Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access, Prisma Access, GlobalProtect, Palo Alto GlobalProtect Mobile Security Manager, Prisma SaaS by Palo Alto Networks, Prisma Access
 

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.
NetApp, Genomic Health, Caterpillar, Apollo, Pandora, Continental Resources, Fractal, infinera, Tesla
Concord Hospital, State of Colorado, Essilor International, RheinLand Versicherungsgruppe, University of Westminster, Universidade Nove de Julho, SPAR Austria, CAME Group, ZipRealty, Greenhill & Co., IKT Agder, Aviva Stadium, Animal Logic, Management & Training Corporation, Brigham Young University Hawaii, School District of Chilliwack
Find out what your peers are saying about Netskope vs. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,846 professionals have used our research since 2012.