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.

I work for a service provider for a defense customer. We are using Zscaler Private Access to connect to the Internet. This is how we keep our customers protected with the latest inspection of the URLs.

The most valuable feature of Zscaler Private Access is the categorization of the dynamic URLs which keeps the customer's environment protected. The threats and the malware are correctly categorized.

Zscaler Private Access's reporting is poor. We should have more insight into the reports regarding what is blocked and allowed.

I have been using Zscaler Private Access for approximately four years.

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

I rate the support of Zscaler Private Access a five out of ten.

There is a lightweight agent on six laptops and the agent reaches out to the SaaS-based cloud.

The process of deployment takes 15 to 30 days.

I rate the initial setup of Zscaler Private Access an eight out of ten.

I rate the ROI from Zscaler Private Access a seven out of ten.

The price is competitive.

I rate the price of Zscaler Private Access five out of ten.

If the reports were improved the customer would have more insight.

I rate Zscaler Private Access nine out of ten.