Cisco Secure Workload vs. Netskope Private Access

The biggest challenge with this product is it crosses lines. You need somebody who can support servers as well as somebody who supports the infrastructure. And that's usually two different jobs, two different job titles, two different departments. So if you have a lot of silos within your organization and you have groups that don't work particularly well together between the server team and the network team, you will have problems developing and working on this product. If your server team and your network team work well together, then you'll have a lot fewer problems, it'll work pretty well. But if your server team and your network team are like oil and water don't bother.

Incentivized

Netskope Private Access provides only authenticated users to access the application and it only allows those users whose access has been provided. It provides fast and secure access to the application, whereas a VPN allows users to connect to the whole network once the VPN is connected. Sometimes due to some back-end changes at the stitcher or management plane user is not able to connect the application which leads to customer business.

• It enables remote users to connect the on premise or cloud hosted application.
• It overcomes the drawbacks of VPN.
• It only allows the genuine user to access the application.

• Publisher upgrade should be pre intimidated.
• NPA user interface can be more simplified.
• Backend changes should be notified.

In comparison to Zscaler Private Access, Netskope Private Access provides more features and stability to the user environment. Netskope private access improves user experience in comparison to Zscaler Private Access. Cost-wise, Zscaler is cheaper than Netskope private access. Netskope Private Access works comparatively better than Zscaler Private Access in a hybrid environment.

• Re-authentication improves the security.
• Application access is more stable.
• Due to frequent publisher upgrade user unable to connect the application.