Zscaler Internet Access Reviews

Zscaler Internet Access provides customers with the internet. We can easily integrate policies. 

The solution has reduced cyberattacks.

We can focus on a granular level of things. 

Zscaler Internet Access needs to integrate more ISPs. It is good to have more than three ISPs. 

I have been working with the solution for one and a half years. 

The product is stable. 

Zscaler Internet Access is scalable. 

Zscaler Internet Access has good tech support. 

The tool is moderately priced. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

The solution is a cloud service, so when you have Zscaler Internet Access, you still often require firewall appliances at the edge to act as gateways to Zscaler. There are certain elements that you can't necessarily ever extract at a network level, which makes it difficult to go completely appliance-less.

You could see it as a downside, but if there's an unavoidable reality of how networking is addressed at this point, and I think that's the only thing that for us is unfortunate, having to always retain some type of alternate firewall or router capability inside the network in order to get to Zscaler, as an example.

We've noticed a trend of Linux support being available at a mobile and workstation level, which isn't available from Zscaler yet, but we are expecting it soon. Zscaler also doesn't offer easy Cisco Meraki integration, which is also on the roadmap, even though we've seen it becoming very common. If we try and use Zscaler with Meraki, it's a fairly manual process to get Meraki to connect to Zscaler, whereas in all other SDware products, there's a lot more automation. 

The only other thing we would love to see in Africa would maybe be an additional Zscaler hub in another strategic location like Kenya to really round out Africa because there are only two hubs in over 30 countries on the continent. One is in South Africa and one is in Nigeria. Africa is kind of a black hole for all cloud providers, which makes life tough for us because there are performance issues when delivering cloud-related services. A little bit more penetration into Africa would help with this.

At a platform level, it's very stable.

One of the primary features of Zscaler is that it's obviously infinitely scalable. That's one of the reasons we like it. It takes away the bottlenecks that we've seen in appliances historically. You can typically grow quite fast.

As long as the platform that they have, that we're connected to, is scaled property, which is their responsibility, then it should be very good. We did hit a problem a while back where they didn't scale properly and we had some major issues. We just hope that it'll never be repeated. It's all about how they manage it, however.

We have about 80,000 users right now. We're selling to more customers, so we're trying to double that number in the next 18 months.

Technical support has been generally very responsive at picking up the tickets in a fairly short amount of time. My experience has been very good.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. The biggest thing for us was to build our own policies. The deployment itself was only a few hours.

We are an integrator and a service provider for Zscaler in the region, so we handled the implementation ourselves.

We have seen an ROI, but the return of investment isn't really as strong as we would like. That has more to do with the reality that South Africa is a very unique and difficult market and the rand depreciation has made all global services expensive in this market. Zscaler, however, leads the local market in value versus functionality. 

Roughly, we might spend $70,000 a month on the solution.

We don't pay for anything beyond the standard licensing fee.

We work with the customers that use a range of different types of proxy services. In my personal experience, I've only ever used Zscaler.

We use the ZIA Business Suite, a version of Zscaler Internet Access.

We use the public cloud deployment model.

The solution is very straightforward. That's what we like about the cloud - all the capabilities that are there, and that are available immediately.

There are things customers really have to have before they integrate the Zscaler. They need to understand ADFS and have it integrated properly into their own network. As long as the customers that you work with do the work required of them before integrating Zscaler, then it's seamless. The problems we encounter happen when customers don't get to the point they need to in order to take it on as a product. 

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

Zscaler Internet Access's best feature is the granular policy controls.

Zscaler Internet Access's troubleshooting is very limited, and their textbook logs need to be more informative.

I've been using Zscaler Internet Access for over five years.

Zscaler Internet Access's stability is pretty good, and when an issue occurs, they're very quick to notify the end-users and fix it.

Zscaler Internet Access is very scalable, and requests for scalable solutions are met quickly.

Zscaler Internet Access's technical support is very good and fast. Sometimes, I've had trouble with level one people, but once an issue is escalated to higher-up engineers, they're pretty quick to provide the solutions.

The initial setup was straightforward - Zscaler Internet Access is plug-and-play, and it's the simplest proxy solution I could recommend.

Licenses are available on a per-host basis. Some features like sandboxing require an additional fee, but most standard features are included in the license.

Zscaler Internet Access is very good, and I would recommend it to others. I would give it a rating of eight out of ten.

The product is an endpoint solution for private and internet security. I use it myself in my home office. I'm in sales. I use it as an endpoint solution for my laptop, for my device, in order to get access to some internal service applications, such as pricing and time management tools.

Zscaler is a very stable solution.

The security is excellent.

I don't know whether it's Zscaler or not, however, sometimes I can't access my time management. I need to wait and try again a few hours later. Typically, if I let some time pass, I can access it again.

From time to time, there's instability in terms of the user experience. I don't know whether it's Zscaler or the time instrument server itself. I don't know the root cause here, that this is the only thing, that causes me issues. Otherwise, I'm quite happy with it.

The solution should do more in regards to handling phishing emails. They maybe should pair with a solution like Palo Alto in order to offer a more holistic view of the security and offer behavioral analytics or endpoint protection, etc., and all from one vendor. Data Lake, for example, is a product that gets the information and gives feedback to the user. There seems to be a high volume of phishing emails that we get, and I'd like to understand what the company is doing to address that. Zscaler seems like it's just a bit too static.

I've been using the solution for four years.

Aside from issues I've had accessing time management from time to time, it seems to be a stable solution.

The question of scalability would be best posed to our CSO. However, my whole team uses it. It's been scaled in our organization to a very small extent. In that sense, it was easy to scale. 

I don't know the maximum capacity, however, it's my understanding that the solution is suitable for organizations like us with about 3,000 employees.

We have our own technical support. I've never directly contacted Zscaler in order to get assistance.

I purely go to our first level of support. Any issues I've ever had have been solved on the first or second level. It's my understanding, that if the issue exceeds a certain level of support, it would be forwarded to Zscaler. However, I've never had issues of that nature. The only issues I've dealt with have been rather easy to solve.

We were previously using Pulse Secure in our organization. I needed to switch it on and off. On top of that, certain applications I could not reach. This was slow and proved to be unstable.

Zscaler, on the other hand, is more stable and also more secure.

The initial setup was straightforward. It wasn't complex at all.

My understanding was that the deployment itself happened pretty quickly.

There was an announcement from our security, and by our CSO. Then it was rolled out and Pulse Secure was turned off. There was a migration phase in the project and that's it. It all happened rather fast.

I don't handle billing or payments and therefore don't know the exact pricing of the solution of what exactly our organization pays.

I wasn't involved in the decision-making process when it came to looking for a solution.

We're just a customer.

I would recommend other users also have a glance at other solutions. Options like Prisma Access by Palo Alto or Check Point may be ideal, depending on the needs of the business.

Zscaler seems easy to understand and easy to use, however, there is probably some room for improvements. At my former company, we were using Check Point. This was also pretty good. Zscaler seems more modern, however, I'm referencing an experience from some 10 years ago.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

The primary use case is for organizations that have a lot of road warriors or very highly distributed small offices. It provides protection anywhere you are...whether you are in a hotel somewhere, or in Africa, it does not matter. You will get the Zscaler protection presence anywhere.

This solution helps you establish a secure connection from your laptop to the closest Zscaler point of presence. So, you have protection anywhere in the world. That's the advantage of it. You don't have to VPN all the way to your home office if you're half-the-world away. You go to the closest Zscaler connection and get your policies applied there. Its very powerful. Its great for anybody who has a lot of distributed work force, a lot of work from home people, or a lot of road warriors, that is where Zscaler shines.

The most valuable feature is the Zscaler protection from external threats. It scrubs everything, email, worms and root problems from websites. It is protection, particularly for distributors users and road warriors. Its very good. They're rated highest in secure web-data wise.

I do not have a problem with the stability of the product.

It is scalable. You can easily put new users and offices on it. It is cloud-based, so you do not run into a hardware limitation like you would with other products.

We used tech support when we first set up the solution. It was good.

It was very straightforward. Anyone with firewall familiarity will find it a simple process to download this solution.

The pricing is an issue. It is expensive if you have all of your users in the same location. It is expensive compared to other firewalls on the market.

We have made comparisons to Palo Alto and Cisco Miraki.

The solution's great, but you have to put it into context because of the pricing and the way it basically protects the device from anywhere. It is really more meant from highly distributed organizations, for organizations that have a lot of work from home and those with road warrior workers. That's what it is designed for.

We use Zscaler for VPN connections and for internet security.

The internet security that it provides is valuable.

The VPN is valuable, as the whole technology is very different from a traditional VPN.

There are a few features that are not compatible with the Azure cloud.

It's not fully compatible with our environment because of the way that it is divided into business units. In order to get it working properly, there are some things that we had to put in for enhancements. Otherwise, everything works well.

We have been using Zscaler Internet Access for about a year.

It is a stable solution, although once or twice, we had issues with latency and slowness. Other than on these occasions, it has been fine.

Scalability-wise, everything is good. We have approximately 3,000 users and we do plan to increase usage. Ultimately, we want to include everyone, which is about 10,000 users.

We have been in contact with technical support and they are very responsive. They also have TAM support, which means that we have a dedicated engineer to look into our issues. That is nice to have.

I have used Cisco Umbrella in the past, which is similar. However, there are definitely differences between these two solutions. Cisco Umbrella is a DNS-based web filtering solution, whereas Zscaler is a cloud-based web application firewall combined with a regular firewall, antivirus, IPS, and other security features.

The initial setup is straightforward and the deployment took place over a couple of days.

We used Zscaler Professional Services for the deployment.

In summary, this is a good product and I completely recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution mainly to protect or provide internet security for our customers including URL filtering for SSL interception, tech protection and to provide phishing protection for our web links.

The URL filtering has been the most valuable feature. 

They're constantly improving because they have a very short development cycle where they add more features every one to three months. If we like a particular feature, we request it through a product enhancement and if it gets accepted, it gets implemented within that year. 

They block Zscaler IPs when the traffic origin is from Zscaler IPs. They've been blocked by certain government organizations so the end users are not able to visit those websites unless we ask them to unblock those IP. This is a bit problematic.

We've been working with Zscaler for almost a year and a half.

This is a stable solution. It's a cloud service so we've never faced any outages. The availability has always been 100% for the past one and a half years. I don't think we've had any incidents with any of our data centers. Even if they do have a problem with a data center, they usually switch to the nearest region.

This is a very scalable solution. 

We have had different experiences with the technical support. I would rate them a seven out of ten. The response time is good but sometimes it is difficult for them to pinpoint the root cause of problems.

We previously used Symantec. The main problem with Symantec was that they did not have a local data center here in UAE. That was one of the biggest requirements for our customers.

The initial setup is very straightforward. They provide the cloud settings and then it's your responsibility to direct your traffic towards the Zscaler Cloud and they manage everything else for you. The infrastructure is managed by the vendor and themselves. We don't have to worry about any maintenance. 

We have experienced a return on our investment. We have used competitor solutions but the experience with this particular solution was much better.

We have purchased it for a maximum of 2000 users at one location and 5000 at another location but I am not sure of the amount we paid.

It's easy to deploy and easy to use. There's a lot less administrative overhead so you won't require a very big team to manage it. It's the biggest benefit.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

We primarily use the product for proxy services. We are using that to manage services with a third party, so we are not directly exposed to Zscaler.

We enjoy all of the proxy capabilities and the capability to integrate into the SIEM/SOC solution. We also like the capability to have local agents on PCs.

We are using that in managed services, so we are happy with the managed service as it is.

It's a very complete solution and well-organized. 

Sometimes it's not easy to use during large deployments of workstations. It's a bottleneck from a network point of view.

It's a technical solution, so you need to have good architects knowledgeable on Zscaler.

We don't need any other added features.

I've been using the product for nearly two years. 

We have around 1,000 users on the solution. 

We do not have plans to increase usage. 

We have other products as well. In the current set of products, I'm not forcing any swaps or changes.

It's a managed service. We are not exposed to the initial setup process.

It's a managed service, so it's included in the service.

We don't have a direct relationship with Zscaler as we use it in a managed service. 

I'd advise new users to be sure that they have good architects to integrate. It's quite complicated.

Sometimes the complexity of integrating with legacy and other complex setups is a chore.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.