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

Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vs Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

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

Netskope Data Loss Preventi...
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
14th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange...
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (9th), Application Control (6th), ZTNA as a Service (1st), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (4th), Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) category, the mindshare of Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is 2.6%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform is 4.4%, down from 6.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform4.4%
Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP)2.6%
Other93.0%
Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1595751 - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Manager at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Has improved sensitive data detection while requiring better support for data-at-rest scanning and classification
Data in transit works quite well and operates in near real-time. However, data at rest scanning operates under separate licensing, and it would be beneficial to examine applications where the location of sensitive data is unknown. Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) could improve data-at-rest scanning capabilities. Regarding DLP-specific improvements, data-at-rest scanning could be enhanced in terms of the applications supported, as coverage is currently limited to a restricted set of enterprise applications. Expanding application coverage would be beneficial. Additionally, data-at-rest scans should be made easier and faster to execute. Most solutions lack Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) functionality, and this capability is not yet mature. A significant limitation is that Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) does not support out-of-the-box data classification. Third-party integrations must be relied upon instead, whereas having built-in data classification support would be advantageous.
Zaheer_Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Cybersecurity Senior Program Manager at Dayforce
Secure access has improved remote work and has reduced vulnerabilities across our workforce
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform probably needs to be more efficient because scanning takes a lot of time. Some vulnerabilities create issues, and when we wanted to identify the source of the vulnerabilities, specifically focusing on mobile ID and related areas, it was unable to provide assistance. However, according to discussions with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform, they said that by the end of mid-2026, they are exploring these features, and probably those features can be incorporated or embedded into this particular system. That is the only major negative point.In terms of responses, Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform is good. In terms of controlling vulnerability, it is good. The only cons I have noticed is that it is a bit slower, and sometimes it is unable to identify the source. These are the key areas for improvement.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product provides visibility to manage sensitive data and control access."
"The Real-Time Analytics and Reporting capabilities of Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) are good and up to the mark."
"Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) provides predefined templates, indexed data matching, EDM, and OCR capabilities, and the role functionality provides significant information, and considerable automation has been built on top of the platform using the available APIs."
"The product is flexible."
"I find Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) easier and more appealing than Zscaler."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable features are the File Type Control and SSL bypass policies. We"
"You can close your data protection gaps with Zscaler. You can quickly find all the classified, sensitive data across the cloud."
"I find all Zscaler Private Access features valuable because each replaces flawed technologies, such as EPAs being replacements for VPN and PR as a replacement for PAM, so I can't mention only one valuable feature. Overall, Zscaler Private Access is a good solution."
"The solution is cloud-based with the latest inspection engines, which I find to be amazing."
"I like the web filtering capabilities."
"The solution is the best for storage."
"SASE's most valuable features are proxy and content filtering."
 

Cons

"Technical support has been rated low. Numerous bugs have been discovered in terms of functionality, and the support team takes considerable time to resolve these issues."
"I rate the pricing a seven out of ten. The pricing is moderate."
"Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) can be improved primarily because we were looking for any other provider due to the ZTNA feature that we were scoping from Netskope."
"The product should be compatible with multiple file formats."
"I have not seen any benefits from this real-time analysis at this time."
"There could be a feature to view the VPN tunnel activities in terms of configuration."
"Zscaler Cloud DLP needs to improve its compatibility with other security tools."
"User management can be improved."
"The interface needs a bit of work."
"The pre-defined dictionaries could be improved."
"Another area of improvement is implementation through non-client connectors. The solution can be implemented in two ways. One uses the back file; the other one uses client connectors. So the client connector is pretty fast, but when it comes to non-client connectors and procedures, it's kind of delayed and slow."
"The solution's granularity should be improved because it has limited granular options to control, visible, allow, block, delay, and receive."
"It has a limitation, if you are creating a rule or something for a web application or something, you could only add five users, not more than that. Five or four users are only included in a rule. If you want to create a rule for more than five or four users, you have to go through other methods, not particularly with the application. Working within the application with this method would be quite easy as compared to listing a URL or a normal IP address."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is moderate."
"It's expensive currently. But when purchasing for a large number of users, there's room to negotiate. It's really up to the procurement team."
"The pricing is expensive and on the higher end. Honestly, in my opinion, it is not worth the price."
"The product has reasonable pricing."
"The solution has increased prices this year."
"The licensing model for Zscaler Cloud DLP allows you to only buy what you need. You don't need to buy it as a whole, so it's good."
"In the long run, cloud services are not inherently costly."
"Zscaler CASB is an expensive solution."
"The product is a little more expensive than other tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise42
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP)?
Data in transit works quite well and operates in near real-time. However, data at rest scanning operates under separate licensing, and it would be beneficial to examine applications where the locat...
What is your primary use case for Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP)?
Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is being used as a Secure Services Engine (SSE) solution for the CASB solution, Shadow IT detection, and Secure Web Gateway capabilities. The primary focus is on...
What advice do you have for others considering Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP)?
Remediation involves blocking specific communications when users attempt to upload sensitive information. Users should be provided with an interface to request exceptions in real-time for business-...
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 access service edge (SASE) designed to deliver network security in a cloud-deliver...
What do you like most about Zscaler SASE?
The most valuable features of Zscaler Private Access are reliability, scalability, and availability.
What needs improvement with Zscaler SASE?
The solution needs to improve a lot of aspects.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Zscaler SASE, Zscaler DLP, Zscaler CASB, Zscaler CSPM, Zscaler Browser Isolation, Zscaler Posture Control
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Siemens, AutoNation, GE, NOV
Find out what your peers are saying about Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vs. Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.