Cisco Secure Access vs. Lookout SASE

Cisco Secure Access has allowed us to monitor and adjust access to web-based resources. We have been able to manage and provide granular rules to allow access to required resources. We are now transitioning to a more zero-trust approach, and so far, the product has demonstrated its capabilities, allowing us to move forward with this approach.

Incentivized

Lookout SASE is well suited for businesses with a handful of employees that are tying to keep their mobile devices secure on the internet. If your employees aren't using the web or interacting with emails Lookout SASE would be less appropriate. Lookout SASE has prevented employees several times from downloading or accessing malicious sites.

Incentivized

• In my experience, zta (zero trust access) is done well in Cisco Secure Access
• In my opinion, segmentation is done well in Cisco Secure Access
• I think traffic security is done well in Cisco Secure Access
• In my experience, enterprise security is done well in Cisco Secure Access

Incentivized

• VNP
• Defined reports
• Blocking suspicious content.

Incentivized

• The integration into the Meraki dashboard is not yet complete, you have to use several interfaces to complete the configuration, the services should be fully integrated to provide better handling
• Integration of firewall rules onprem and cloud should be standardized
• Better user management / import

Incentivized

• Lookout SASE could improve on the ease of adding users to the platform.
• A management app could be useful.
• PC integration.

Incentivized

It's simpler to identify or find things within the platform. Obviously, there are always things to improve, maybe in the GUI or in certain things coming over from Umbrella, because this platform is actually adopting a lot of the Umbrella solutions. And it's just a matter of trying to navigate through it. I really like the way it's simplified in how you categorize your internal policies and your private access policies. It's just a different mindset and a different way of creating policies in this case, compared to how Umbrella did in the past with rule sets and those kinds of things. But the actual solution itself works pretty well when you understand it.

Incentivized

The other product that we have seen before in the past, Zscaler, that's a different solution. It's kind of modularized where you have different components and the older different things. The advantage of Cisco Secure Access is that everything is in a single location; you don't have to switch between places. And it's just how Cisco wants to approach simplicity of branding access. We really like that, and compared to other vendors, they kind of have things a little bit more separated, and that's just by design.

Incentivized

Workspace ONE is a whole gorilla compared to Lookout SASE. Compared
to Lookout SASE it is extremely easy to use and to add devices.
Workspace ONE has a lot of features but is extremely hard to use and
with a lot of errors. I would still recommend other MDM's instead of
Workspace One.

Incentivized

• The impact Cisco Secure Access has on our organization's overall business objectives is that we Replaced Bomgar
• Another impact Cisco Secure Access has on our organization's overall business objectives is that it Eliminated giving vendors AD accounts
• A third impact Cisco Secure Access has on our organization's overall business objectives is that Cisco Secure Access is Quick to deploy

Incentivized

• Long run security
• Device protection
• Network Protection

Incentivized