Evidence comparison
Zscaler and Netskope: what the public record shows about each
Both products turn up on network security shortlists, so this page puts their two evidence records next to each other: 45 items on Zscaler and 40 on Netskope, each one linked to the source it came from. It does not name a winner, and the section below explains why the numbers cannot be subtracted from one another.
Read the counts correctly
More advisories does not mean less secure. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed. A product deployed in thousands of organisations with a mature disclosure process accumulates far more entries than a product nobody audits. A low count can mean a small install base, a young product or a vendor that publishes little, and a high count often marks the opposite.
The two counts are not measured with equal precision. An advisory is only listed against a vendor when the register ties it to one of its products by name, and vendors differ enormously in how consistently their products are named. Here that gap is 1 unattributable entries for Zscaler against 5 for Netskope, which moves the advisory row far more than the products do. Both numbers are in the table so the difference is visible rather than hidden.
Treat this page as two records shown together, never as one score minus another.
The two records side by side
| Measure | Zscaler | Netskope |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence items in the recordSize of the record, not a quality signal. | 45 | 40 |
| Kinds of source | 4 | 5 |
| Advisories attributed to the vendor's productsCounts scrutiny and deployment breadth. See the caution above. | 36 | 17 |
| Register entries that could not be attributedEntries naming the vendor that could not be tied to one of its products, so they are excluded from the row above. Read the two rows together: where this number is high, the registers describe that vendor's products less consistently, and the advisory count above says more about naming than about the product. | 1 | 5 |
| Of those, in the CISA known-exploited catalogueExploitation observed in the wild. The one count worth reading closely. | 0 | 0 |
| Share from government registers | 82% | 80% |
| Share the vendor cannot edit | 100% | 100% |
| Public practitioner threadsReflects community size as much as product behaviour. | 1 | 0 |
| Most recent entry | Jul 17, 2026 | Jul 03, 2026 |
| Sources last re-queried | Jul 17, 2026 | Jul 18, 2026 |
Where each record comes from
The registers and platforms behind each column, with the body that operates each one. A record resting on government registers carries different weight from one resting on the vendor's own documentation, which is why this is shown per vendor rather than merged.
Zscaler
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 25 | Mar 31, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 12 | Apr 01, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 6 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 2 | Feb 15, 2026 |
Netskope
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 22 | Jun 17, 2026 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 10 | Jun 17, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 4 | Jul 03, 2026 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 3 | Feb 06, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 1 | Feb 15, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Only entries tied to a product of the named vendor by a structural signal are listed: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, the vendor as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. Entries that merely mention a vendor in passing are excluded from both columns.
Zscaler
- WID-SEC-2026-0938mediumCVSS 5.4Apr 01, 2026
Affected products: ZScaler Client Connector
- CVE-2026-22569mediumCVSS 5.4Mar 31, 2026
An incorrect startup configuration of affected versions of Zscaler Client Connector on Windows may cause a limited amount of traffic from being inspected under rare circumstances.
- CVE-2026-22567highCVSS 7.6Feb 23, 2026
Improper validation of user-supplied input in the ZIA Admin UI could allow an authenticated administrator to initiate backend functions through specific input fields in limited scenarios.
- CVE-2026-22568mediumCVSS 5.5Feb 23, 2026
Improper neutralization of special elements in user-supplied input within the ZIA Admin UI could allow an authenticated administrator to access or retrieve unauthorized internal information…
- WID-SEC-2025-2578mediumCVSS 5.2Nov 12, 2025
Affected products: ZScaler Client Connector
- CVE-2025-54983mediumCVSS 5.2Nov 12, 2025
A health check port on Zscaler Client Connector on Windows, versions 4.6 < 4.6.0.216 and 4.7 < 4.7.0.47, which under specific circumstances was not released after use, allowed traffic to…
Netskope
- CVE-2025-15642mediumCVSS 6.8Jun 17, 2026
Netskope is notified about a potential gap in its Netskoped Client for Windows systems where a malicious insider with admin privileges can lead to bypassing the NSClient Tamper Protections…
- CVE-2025-15641mediumCVSS 6.8Jun 17, 2026
Netskope was notified about a potential gap in its Netskope Client for Windows systems where a malicious insider with administrative privileges can potentially tamper with the customer…
- CVE-2026-2810mediumCVSS 6.8Apr 29, 2026
Netskope was notified about a potential gap in the Endpoint DLP Module for Netskope Client on Windows systems.
- CVE-2026-2809mediumCVSS 6.7Mar 17, 2026
Netskope was notified about a potential gap in its Endpoint DLP Module for Netskope Client on Windows systems.
- CVE-2025-15584mediumCVSS 6.8Mar 17, 2026
Netskope was notified about a potential gap in its Endpoint DLP Module for Netskope Client on Windows systems.
- CVE-2025-11156mediumCVSS 5.9Nov 28, 2025
Netskope was notified about a potential gap in its agent (NS Client) on Windows systems.
What practitioners report
Public threads naming each product in their own title. Not curated for sentiment, and not counted as a verdict: a loud thread is one team's experience, not a measurement.
Zscaler
- Hacker NewsFeb 15, 2026Independent
Show HN: Pangolin: Open-source identity-based VPN (Twingate/Zscaler alternative)
Netskope
What neither record can tell you
The two lists below are the honest holes in each record. Everything a choice between these two actually turns on sits outside both of them.
Zscaler
- A further 1 register entries mention Zscaler without naming a product of Zscaler as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
- Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Netskope
- A further 5 register entries mention Netskope without naming a product of Netskope as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- No public practitioner discussion naming Netskope was found in the indexed threads. Operational experience with this product is not represented in this record.
- Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
- Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether Zscaler is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- Detection Accuracy (MITRE ATT&CK coverage)weight
- MDR / Managed Detection & Responseweight
- Deployment Complexityweight
- Automated Response / Remediationweight
- SIEM Integrationweight
Criteria shown as examples for network security. Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Which is better, Zscaler or Netskope?
This page does not answer that, and no public page can. Better exists only relative to a decision: which criteria matter, how heavily each weighs, what counts as a dealbreaker and which systems the product has to live next to. What this page gives you is the evidence on both, 45 items on Zscaler and 40 on Netskope, each with its source, so the judgement rests on the record rather than on marketing.
Does Zscaler or Netskope have more vulnerabilities?
Zscaler currently has 36 attributed advisories in this record and Netskope has 17. That comparison is easy to misread. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed, so a widely deployed product with an active disclosure process accumulates more entries than one nobody audits. A low count can equally mean a small install base or a vendor that publishes little. The two figures are also not measured with equal precision: an advisory only counts here when a register ties it to a named product, and 1 entries naming Zscaler and 5 naming Netskope could not be tied to one. The count worth reading closely is how many entries appear in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities, which is 0 for Zscaler and 0 for Netskope.
How independent is the evidence on Zscaler and Netskope?
100 percent of the Zscaler record and 100 percent of the Netskope record come from sources the vendor does not control: government vulnerability registers, public practitioner threads and a fixed list of recognised analysts and technology press. Material either vendor publishes about itself stays in the record and is labelled as a claim.
What does this comparison of Zscaler and Netskope leave out?
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods, support commitments and the current scope of any certificate. None of those appear in a public register; they come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record. Fit with your existing stack and your compliance scope is also absent, because it is a property of your organisation rather than of a network security product.
Why does nexalign publish this instead of ranking Zscaler and Netskope?
Because a ranking would have to invent the buyer. Every quadrant and score sheet silently assumes a weighting that belongs to someone else's decision. nexalign publishes the record and keeps the weighting where it belongs, in DecisionOS, where it is set by the people who have to defend the outcome.
The full records
Zscaler: the full evidence record
45 items from 4 kinds of source
Netskope: the full evidence record
40 items from 5 kinds of source
Two records do not make a decision
Choosing between Zscaler and Netskope depends on which criteria matter to you, how heavily each one weighs, what your hard constraints are and who has to sign the result off. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool, scores it against the criteria of your actual decision and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.