Zscaler Internet Access Reviews

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.

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.

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.

I use Zscaler Internet Access as an internet proxy for security.

The most valuable feature of Zscaler Internet Access is that it is a consolidated solution, it comes with many features, such as DLP.

Zscaler Internet Access could improve by adding a VPN feature.

I have been using Zscaler Internet Access for approximately one year.

Zscaler Internet Access is highly stable.

The scalability of Zscaler Internet Access is good.

The technical support from Zscaler Internet Access is good.

I rate the support from Zscaler Internet Access a four out of five.

The initial setup of Zscaler Internet Access is simple.

We did evaluate other solutions before choosing Zscaler Internet Access, such as Symantec.

I rate Zscaler Internet Access an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use this web security solution to protect our users in remote locations or branches from internet threats. It is very important for our organization to protect our users, even if they are not connected to our network. 

Zscaler Web Security protects our users in remote locations from internet threats even if they are not connected to our network.

What I like most about Zscaler Web Security is that we can have our users protected from internet threats and viruses even when they're not connected to our network. I love the fact that it enables us to create whitelists and blacklists based on specific users. These features are extremely important to us and that is what we like most about this solution.

The reporting could be improved to make it a little bit easier. When it comes to individual users, I'd like to see easy reporting that can be shared with executives. Due to my technical background I don't have issues to understand the reporting. 

However, if I have to give a report to an executive to read, he may find it too confusing. He wants to see something simplistic that contains information like what the user's access time was, how long the user spent time on the site, which sites was visited, what they did etc. The current reports can, therefore, be somewhat improved and simplified. 

Another thing that I would like to see is if Zscaler could have a separate product for direct access. I looked at a private access solution, but I understand there's a separate product that isn't integrated with this. 

We've never experienced any outages or other problems since we started using this solution, so I believe it is very stable and secure. 

I think it scaled quite well. We are currently using it in a small organization with about 250 users, and I would say it will scale as our company grows. 

We've used the technical support on occasion, and they were excellent. 

We bought Zscaler Web Security through our Internet Service Provider, so they handled most of the setup. So, from our part, it was quite straightforward.

Our Internet Service Provider is a reseller, and they helped with the installation and setup. Their level of expertise was outstanding. Maintenance and deployment will be easy to manage and I believe one person will be able to handle it. It won't be a full-time job. 

Although I can't put a figure to it, we've definitely seen a return on our investment.

Our monthly fee is around R3000 and I think it is very reasonable.

My advice to other users would be to determine if the reporting meets their requirements. They should get their whitelists, blacklists, groups and active directory set up properly before trying to implement it because it has a very strong integration with the active directory. Therefore, if you have your active directory well set up, you can classify your users and create groups as to who can go where and who can do what on the internet.

If I have to rate this product, I will give it a nine out of ten - simply because I never give anything a 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. 

The protection is most valuable.

The interface for administration could be better. They should upgrade the management portal.

Their support could also be better.

We have probably been using this solution for about three years. We are using its latest version. 

Its stability is reasonable. We've had a couple of outages, but overall, it has been okay.

Its scalability is fine.

It could be better.

It was probably in the middle in terms of complexity. Bits of it were easy, and bits of it were more complicated than we envisaged. I would rate it a three out of five in terms of the setup.

Its implementation probably took several weeks. It is deployed on-premises as well as on a public cloud.

We had involved a third party. It was a bit of a mix.

For the maintenance, there are about three people.

It is quite expensive. It does its job, but it is quite expensive for what we need.

Understand your use case and be sure of your technical ability to implement the policies.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

The primary use for the solution is to provide better more mature security for our client's networks.

The solution offers a level of quality of operation and services for each site. By deploying this service we reduce the overall variational risk.

The solution offers a distributed organization to master and to control all of the endpoints. Zscaler allows us to deploy their solution instead of building an in-house proprietary solution. Because it is well integrated and mature, it's faster, cheaper, and better for the company.

Zscaler should provide adjacent services, which would be complementary to their current offering that could to be more pragmatic for a customer. For example, if you take Akamai, you get multiple sets of services, all depending on the customer and the strategy and the complexity and the problems. In some areas, they are more varied in terms of coverage. For example, they also offer content delivery networks, which is complimentary, and for some customers that could solve two problems at once. By providing a wider range of services, Zscaler could reduce deployment risk and operational risk by being a one-stop-shop type of solution.

In the next release, Zscaler should offer a content delivery network.

The solution is scalable. Right now, the company has 40,000 users. The client intends to increase usage.

The initial setup that I'm aware of was not very smooth. I would not blame the product. It was more of the global maturity of the organization we were implementing for. If the organization is not able to align their team, the deployment will be difficult. This deployment is ongoing. We started it four months ago.

We consult on the implementation.

I'm currently consulting clients, and have worked with this solution extensively in the past. Most of my clients are moving from a private cloud to a hybrid cloud deployment model.

The way Zscaler has shaped their product is very good. Now they need to expand the coverage and to have a more global service. For mid-players and sometimes top-players, multiplying the numbers of providers to build an integrated solution is a complex endeavor. If Zscaler expanded their services, that would remove some complexity,

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.