Netskope Reviews

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.

We use Netskope CASB to establish an audit trail of all the accesses to SAS applications, and other applications hosted on our cloud infrastructure. We use it for the identification of shadow IT applications. Additionally, we use Netskope CASB to have the visibility of all the applications hosted on the cloud.

The client size and architectural components in Netskope are far better than other solutions.

There could be better integration with other solutions. 

I have been using this solution for two years.

The solution is stable.

Netskope CASB is scalable.

The solution is easy to implement.

There is a license required for this solution and there are many licensing models available. For example, what applications are covered as part of the license.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Netskope CASB an eight out of ten.

The solution primarily ensures the security of whoever's infrastructure as it relates to not only email but applications. It allows for the security of managed and unmanaged applications. 

Probably the most recent example of how the solution can assist a company is in terms of a false positive on a DLP. It was instituted to overcome a false positive due to the strain that was being used that was being captured as a positive issue. The false-positive was locking users out of their email addresses. This helped solve that issue.

Overall it's the supporting of not only the managed but also the unmanaged applications, which is quite useful.

This is a journey, this is not a destination. They're forever enhancing the solution to meet various and sundry requirements and needs. Just this year alone, they introduced the ability to support emails and being able to keep emails from a phishing perspective.

The automation offered by the product is pretty solid.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The training materials on offer are very good.

The solution can scale.

The stability has been pretty good so far.

The solution is always evolving and adding new features. However, I can't think of an area where it is specifically lacking per see.

I'm a reseller, so anytime we can get the solution cheaper I'm for that. From a pricing perspective, that wouldn't hurt. 

Their partner piece could be a little bit stronger than what it is right now.

The solution is still pretty new to the CASB environment.

We started dealing with the solution in November of last year. It hasn't been that long yet.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is reliable.

The scalability is good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's highly scalable. It's one of the reasons why we chose the application over anything else. We've deployed it to anywhere from 50 users to 10,000 users.

I've never directly dealt with technical support. I've never needed their assistance. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I have no personal experience. I also haven't heard any feedback from clients, which I take as a positive sign.

We found that the initial setup was pretty straightforward. It wasn't overly difficult or complex. 

How long it takes to deploy depends on the policies that a company has. It depends on what we're applying stuff to. It can range anywhere from two weeks to three months, depending on the policies that we need to adjust, amend and adhere to.

We typically do the installation for our customers. We usually sell our implementation services along with the solution.

The solution is designed as a SaaS.

The pricing could always be better, and they need to strengthen their relationship with their partners.

We are resellers of the product.

The product is a SaaS and therefore is always up-to-date. It uses microservices. We're always dealing with the latest version of the product. It updates itself.

Our clients use different deployment models and different clouds for deployment.

I'd advise other companies to use the solution, and implement it now rather than later. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Their ease of use, the training materials that they got, and what the solution actually covers are all very good. That said, they're fairly new into the CASB environment. However, they have done a pretty solid job with customer acceptance, with providing products that really meet the needs of what today's SaaS-based environments really require. When you start looking at how many SaaS applications are out there, being able to manage and secure against a multitude of threats, the solution ends up being quite impressive.

It gives us a very broad look at SaaS governance. It doesn’t focus only on security risk, it also brings in the vast assets of managing SaaS and it addresses redundancies in the SaaS that we have paid for.

It gives us a view into risk, redundancy and cost, just to build on what I said previously. It helps us minimize risk in SaaS, and helps us minimize redundancy in SaaS and cost itself.

I would like for the product to have very clear visibility with regards to what SaaS is being used actively versus what SaaS is being accessed from a passive user.

I've used it for about one year.

We haven't encountered any issues with deployment.

It's been very stable.

We are working on scaling right now. I don’t foresee any issues.

To their credit, we haven’t needed to activate technical support from a troubleshooting perspective much. Otherwise, they have been very proactive in regards to reaching out to us with new features and capabilities.

Security risks were the main drivers to choosing this product.

It’s very straightforward. It was very administrative, but it wasn’t that extensive.

It was done in-house, but they did have people working with us in case we needed assistance.

We evaluated the entire ecosystem of products at that time. Netskope met the majority of our needs at that time as well as now, which means it's still the leading product.

This solution should be recognized as a very important tool that gets your organization to a certain vision or a certain outcome. If the organization wants to have a very clear picture on redundancies and costs, and to map all its enterprise capabilities to verified SaaS vendors, then this tool can do both proactive policing as well as passive.

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 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.

They are very good at CASB as compared to other players.

They can focus more on ease of admin, ease of use, and ease of migration. Migration should be simple for companies that are using a different platform and would like to move to Netskope. Everyone looks for a simple migration.

They can also focus more on cloud services and cloud trends. They have to see the cloud market, and they should try to compete with Zscaler and other players. They should also work on licensing costs.

I have been using this solution for a year.

Their support is good, but there is room for improvement.

We are also using Zscaler.

It was not complex, but it was also not easy. The deployment took close to two months for us.

We used a reseller.

They should work on licensing costs.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is a good product.

I would rate Netskope CASB a nine out of ten. 

As a worker located in a remote location, accessing office information securely is crucial. To facilitate this, we utilize Netskope.

The most valuable feature of Netskope is protection.

The CSPM model needs to improve.

I have been using Netskope for approximately two years.

Netskope is reliable.

I rate the stability of Netskope a ten out of ten.

The solution is highly scalable and there is very low latency. 

I rate the scalability of Netskope a ten out of ten.

The support is good. They provide support in English and Portuguese.

The implementation of Netskope was straightforward.

I have received a high ROI using the solution.

The price is in the middle range compared to other solutions.

I rate the price of Netskope a five out of five.

I recommend Netskope if it fits the customer's use case.

I rate Netskope a nine out of ten.