Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform Reviews

The primary use case of SASE is for secure access, whether for public internet or private applications. Post-Covid, users are connecting from everywhere and need secure access with a good user experience. We deploy this solution to our customers. 

Safe access is a key valuable feature. The ability to secure data in terms of confidentiality is also a great feature. Instead of going through existing gateways or their networks, users get direct secure access to applications over the internet. Connectivity to the applications is also great.

Although it's good, the DX layer could be better if it had improved visibility. There is definitely scope to enhance that aspect. Some customers are looking for application connectivity over zero trust which is a concern for them. I believe it's in the Zscaler roadmap and we hope to see that in the near future. 

I've been providing this solution to our customers for a decade. 

There were initially some stability issues but the solution is now very stable.

The scalability is great and it's the biggest advantage of having any SaaS solution. We have all categories of customers and a mid-market enterprise board. Our client companies have users that range anywhere from 500 up to 5,000. 

The initial setup is not complex at all and easy to handle. Customers have to familiarize themselves with the solution and try it out themselves. Deployment usually takes a couple of weeks although it depends on use cases and complexity. There may also be dependencies from the network side which can add to the deployment time.

Zscaler offers a point-to-site or point-to-point connectivity to a dedicated service in a secure way. The DNS encryption is based on the identity of users or the identity of a group of users.

It's a cloud solution. We use Zscaler App Connector to manage the solution. As a company, we need to manage connectors. Some are attached to the virtual machine.

Typically, we have 200 fixed users. We can increase the number of users by 10% each year.

The integration with cloud providers, like Azure or GCP, is easy. The Live Logs are a cool feature. We can directly identify issues and divert user traffic.

I have used this solution for four years.

It's stable, but sometimes we need to do things manually to get access. For example, if there is a new user, they need to log out and log back in to enforce updates.

It's scalable.

I would rate technical support as four out of five. We don't always get the desired answer because of the limitations of the product.

We have also used Azure Point-to-Site.

Setup is a bit complex because there are many steps that need to be taken before onboarding and activating the solution. The difficulty of setup will depend on the use cases.

It took at least one hour to activate everything and deploy the solution.

The cost is expensive. It depends on the number of users. There is a license for basic encryption. If we want to add new features, we have to pay to activate them. We have two types of licenses: a license for users and a license for our subscription.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

We use Zscaler Private Access to provide access to on-premise applications.

The most valuable feature of Zscaler Private Access is we do not have to connect to a VPN, it is seamless. It is more convenient for us because we use one agent to cover the internet and VPN access.

Zscaler Private Access could improve by improving external access. If external parties want to access locally to my company's services, we need to onboard them into our domain, otherwise, it doesn't work. Additionally, if their company also has Zscaler Private Access, then it doesn't work. They need to log in with our domain ID, not their company ID.

I have been using Zscaler Private Access for approximately one and a half years.

The stability of Zscaler Private Access is good.

I rate the stability of Zscaler Private Access a five out of five.

Zscaler Private Access is scalable.

I rate the scalability of Zscaler Private Access a five out of five.

We have approximately 300 users using this solution.

I have not used the support from Zscaler Private Access.

I use FortiClient VPN in parallel with Zscaler Private Access.

Zscaler Private Access's initial setup was simple. The total time for the implementation took one hour.

We did the implementation of Zscaler Private Access with one person.

I rate Zscaler Private Access an eight out of ten.

We are using Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange for its Zscaler Internet Access service. It provides web security, DLP, data protection, prevention, and lots more features.

It has improved our organization’s working process and efficiency.

It has some good data security and WIP features, providing secure Internet access. We get seamless access with our agents and users. It has some fantastic hardware. They have AI-powered integration with in-built features for the scheduler. It provides security and is connected to manage the security level, which is good.

The solution needs to improve a lot of aspects.

I have been using Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange for more than one year.

I don’t contact the support, but my team usually does.

Previously, I used Citrix.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took almost three months to deploy, but it was smooth.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

Zscaler Private Access is used for private data. You need to deploy Zscaler Private Access to put security and internal network after you build your application. The solution is used when you build an application and want to provide services to the public.

The most valuable features of Zscaler Private Access are reliability, scalability, and availability.

Zscaler Private Access needs to improve its collaboration with applications without compromising security. The solution needs to improve native security, seamless protection, and user experience. Users should be able to access the solution anytime, and it should be made easy to install and easy to understand.

Zscaler Private Access needs to improve its customization.

I have been using Zscaler Private Access for two years.

Zscaler Private Access is a stable solution.

I rate Zscaler Private Access an eight out of ten for stability.

The solution’s scalability is very good.

The solution’s technical support is good.

The solution's initial setup is a little bit difficult and depends on your architecture knowledge.

The solution's deployment time depends on the infrastructure, the number of computers, and the number of employees.

Zscaler Private Access can be an expensive solution, depending on the license type you will purchase.

Zscaler Private Access is deployed on-cloud in our organization. I would recommend Zscaler Private Access to other users.

Overall, I rate Zscaler Private Access a nine out of ten.

As IT integrators, we are using the solution for application control, URL filtering, sandboxing, and antivirus. We have modules with data leak prevention and cloud browser isolation, device posture checking, related to the access because we are also using it for the ZTNA services, but it's not related to the Secure Web Gateway. We are also using it in ZIA with a firewall as a service.

I believe Zscaler SASE has given us increased security with endpoint protection. We may not have eliminated 100% of the threats, but we are resistant to threats on the Internet. The solution blocks almost all known vulnerabilities or problems related to phishing actions, so I would say that is the biggest benefit.

With SASE, we have a single platform that covers multiple task services with which we need to control access. All the features are equally valuable.

The menu for the ZIA portal could be organized a little bit differently. The most-used modules should be at the top of the menus, not somewhere near the bottom, some of them are not organized well in my opinion.

I have been working with Zscaler SASE for almost one year.

There were a few global issues this year that something was not working correctly, or that sometimes we experienced different behavior with the filtering policies between the points of presence. For example, if there is a user located in Amsterdam, then it was filtering traffic differently than in Frankfurt because they were connected to two different points of presence. The issue was later resolved by technical support.

The solution is scalable.

The quality of customer support depends on the situation, where sometimes the correct actions are taken immediately. So sometimes, I would rate it a ten out of ten.

But sometimes we have to explain the same situation, even referencing old tickets, while the support agent would not even check what was done in the previous tickets, and it takes much longer to solve the case. In such situations, I would rate customer support a four out of ten.

The setup is quite easy. The primary configuration requires some adjustments to the client's needs, but it's quite easy.

The deployment depends on a questionnaire to determine expectations, what should be checked, verified, and what works with the highest SLA. The actual deployment does not require a lot of staff members.

Maintenance for the solution includes keeping the client's connector updated and checking the device posture.

I have downloaded reports of Cisco Umbrella, Fortinet FortiGate, FortiProxy, and Zscaler.

I would recommend Zscaler SASE, for sure, and would rate it a nine out of ten.

Private Access is more for very high-powered users. It's dedicated access to certain applications. It's for more sensitive users. It's not for general users. 

The dedicated connection is the most valuable aspect of this solution. It makes the connection very secure. 

It is easy to use. 

The setup is very straightforward. 

We'd like to have two-factor authentication that is quite simple.

Users are only those at the management level or directors. The users are only high-level individuals. It's not meant for everyone. 

We previously just used an antivirus like McAfee. We use McAfee endpoint protection with this over the top now. 

This solution is very simple to set up. It's not a complex implementation. 

You just need one person to maintain the solution. It just takes one system administrator. 

The pricing is incremental. It's just a small incremental cost for each user. You do need at least 500 users. Otherwise, it is not cost-efficient. 

We're partners. We resell the solution. 

This is a good product. It's easy to deploy, secure, and good for securing employees. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I use Zscaler Cloud DLP for its DLP features. It gives you all the basic features such as keywords, regular expressions, data identifiers, etc., but the only difference is that you can only apply the DLP policies to web traffic.

Zscaler Cloud DLP provides you with basic DLP features that you get out of the box such as keywords, regular expressions, and data identifiers, for example, your social security numbers, and credit card numbers, with everything built into the product, so you can directly use those features within the policies. You don't need to create it from scratch, and to me, this is the biggest benefit of Zscaler Cloud DLP. You have a lot of templates to choose from in the solution, rather than having to create templates from scratch or reinvent templates.

The only issue with Zscaler Cloud DLP is that it only gives you DLP protection from web traffic, which is flowing out, while a full-blown DLP solution such as Forcepoint or Symantec gives you DLP coverage for multiple channels.

Zscaler Cloud DLP doesn't give you coverage for email, fax, and USB channels, and this is the only challenge or room for improvement in the solution. It's just an extension on top of what you're buying on the proxy, so it's just an added layer, and it doesn't cover DLP on a very broad level.

I'm unsure if Zcaler is in the business of competing with a full-blown DLP solution, and if there's a plan to expand the features of Zscaler Cloud DLP beyond the web channel because you'll have to deploy a full-blown agent for it. I'm unsure if this is on the cards because the solution is just an added layer that you get with your proxy. I've asked the Zcaler team whether there's a plan to go full DLP in the future, but I didn't get a positive response.

There isn't any feature I'd like added to Zscaler Cloud DLP currently, because anything you could think of that should be in cloud or SaaS solutions is already there, except for machine learning, as it's the only functionality that seems to be lacking in the solution. Machine learning is an additional policy available in other DLP solutions in the market, but my team didn't find it in Zscaler Cloud DLP.

I've been working with Zscaler Cloud DLP for a year and a half.

Zscaler Cloud DLP is a very stable product. My team had very, very few complaints about it, and I never had a situation where an end user would come to me and complain about performance or latency issues with Zscaler Cloud DLP.

Zscaler Cloud DLP is a scalable product.

We've never contacted the Zscaler Cloud DLP technical support team because it's a very straightforward product, so we didn't need help or raised cases about it.

The initial setup for Zscaler Cloud DLP was very straightforward because the portal walks you through it, and you get initial help for a few hours from Zcaler professionals who help you and walk you through the entire setup process.  The team understands what your needs are and give you the best possible suggestions on how to use Zscaler Cloud DLP, how to administer it, and how to maintain it, so that's all good.

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.

I evaluated Forcepoint and Symantec DLP solutions, and both are equally good.

I'm still working with Zscaler Cloud DLP.

Zscaler Cloud DLP is not difficult to maintain, and maintaining it is the vendor's responsibility, so you don't need to worry about it.

I would recommend Zscaler Cloud DLP to others because it's the best proxy product in the market at the moment.

Zscaler Cloud DLP is a pretty good product. It's just missing one or two features, so I would rate it as eight out of ten.