Ivanti Secure Unified Client vs. Zscaler Private Access

It is well suited for large corporations for granularity on users' roles, security levels for each application, and for logging in with an extra security layer. For doing demanding network tasks, like downloading a large set of data or for streaming, it could get slower than with a direct connection.

Incentivized

Zscaler Private Access works really well in environments setup for FQDNs and where you know what users should/shouldn't be accessing on what ports. You can use Zscaler Private Access to figure out these kinds of features but that doesn't always mean you'll be correct. It also provides a consistent experience for users as they can access their materials anywhere. It also makes the user the last line of defense. If a user's account is compromised then the attacker has access to everything they already did. It doesn't work great in OT environments or Server based environments. Flows have to be initiated from the client and not the server for stuff to behave properly.

Incentivized

• Provides what any VPN should provide
• Works on many OSs, though I will relay my Mac OS experience in another section of the review
• Their clientless VPN offering could be interesting, depending on your needs

Incentivized

• Allows strong cyber security corporate policies
• Very reliable VPN application that operates at 100% efficiency
• Very easy to be configured with friendly user interface

Incentivized

• It's a little slower
• Requires to be careful with the configuration on network
• It seems to cause a weird behavior in MAC when loading after turn on sometimes

Incentivized

• Granularity and Complexity of Policy Enforcement
• Application Segmentation and Listener Configuration - The way applications are defined and listened for is fundamental to ZPA, but can be a source of frustration, especially when dealing with legacy or non-HTTP protocols
• The ZCC is the user's primary gateway, but its control over local system network behavior can sometimes clash with enterprise requirements.

Incentivized

The environment feels more secure, and we are seeing that users are adapting to it fast. The fact that we have tools to assist the users with their day-to-day access helps, as we can hand it off to the helpdesk without any escalations to the Network team. It is a work in progress for our agency, but we are seeing the benefits from the solution.

Incentivized

I wasn't a part of the decision process to use Pulse Secure. I believe NordVPN Teams and ExpressVPN are both far superior products. Modern UI (Pulse Secure's UI is incredibly outdated), less reconnects, cheaper, less hacks (On April 20, 2021, CISA issued an "Emergency Directive on Pulse Connect Secure"), and simply faster overall connection speeds.

Incentivized

Well ZPA is a good solution, however everyone has their own advantage and disadvantages, with ZPA you can deploy ZTNA model, which will help you better control on access, however Palo Alto, Fortinet they are also market leading firewall solution, and you can not deny if they are not providing the same features.

Incentivized

• It has a positive ROI

Incentivized

• Positive: We have now charged users internally for the service
• Negative: Dealing with users who also have the Zscaler Client Connector for their company, can cause confusions
• Negative: Enabling the Zscaler Internet Access entitlement has been a major headache for us because Zscaler Private Access users can't autheniticate through ZIA on a non corporate device.

Incentivized