Netskope Reviews

CASB: allows selective cloud service access, e.g., it allows our O365 tenant but prevents upload to other tenants.

It allows the use of cloud since we can control risks vs. just blocking access.

Tenant identification for cloud storage services.

Better debugging tools to identify operational concerns, e.g., "Netskope is slow", and the only way to prove it's not is to disable it — no data on time taken for different hops.

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.

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 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.

There is no real room for improvement that I can think of. Most of the features meet our requirements. I don't see anything that can be improved now. If something would need improvement I would offer the suggestion and I believe it would be taken care of.  

Support services could definitely be improved. Support is the one area that can always use improvement. It's an evolving thing, so based on demand and based on market requirement and the way market is moving towards.

I have been using Netskope for one year. 

It's quite stable. As of now, we haven't had any kinds of bugs or anything within our environment.

It's scalable. We have around 500 users using it at my company. 

Technical support is good. 

The initial setup was straight forward. 

I would recommend it. 

I would rate it an 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. 

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.

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.

Our primary use case is to check our multiple cloud services and to maintain security for employees. 

Before Netskope we couldn't see which employee what using our service but now, we can easily see which cloud service an employee is using. 

The ability to enforce the company security policies for our employees is its most valuable feature.

I would like to have an identity theft protection function.

Stability is very good. 

Scalability is good. We have around 300 employees using this solution and we do have plans to increase the usage in the future. 

Technical support is good. They are very helpful and quick to resolve any issues we have. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It's not easy, but it is straightforward. 

Licensing is very good. Pricing is a little expensive but it is affordable. 

It's very important to show your employees that they are protected by a good security solution. You need a solution like this, in my opinion. 

I would rate it a ten out of ten.