I use Cisco Secure Access as a VPN service. Cisco Secure Access provides not just securing and filtering capability on the traffic, but also a cloud VPN capability. This basically relieves the company from using the traditional perimeter firewall to connect via VPN. VPN connectivity through the cloud is incredibly flexible and is not constrained by the power of the firewall the company has, because the VPN is through the cloud. This allows companies to provide VPN capability to any remote user on a very short notice and not be limited by their firewall.

I use ZTNA with Cisco Secure Access, which is another very clever capability that Cisco Secure Access has grouped along with several other interesting capabilities in one product. I always recommend and suggest to customers to try a proof of value or proof of concept of the product, which is very easy to do. Cisco allows any customer, literally for free, to test the product by themselves and test, for example, ZTNA capability. Customers can see for themselves with a proof of value how easy it is to install the product and how quickly it can be delivered in production.

I use it with my clients both client-based and clientless with Cisco Secure Access. There are requirements for customers to allow connectivity to subcontractors who cannot install a client on the endpoints. Cisco Secure Access is a crucial solution in these situations because it can protect both employees and subcontractors, or any situation where a client is not feasible to install on the endpoint, while still allowing the same kind of level of protection.

Cisco Secure Access has helped my clients transition from Zero Trust and least privilege principles. It provides protection even with technology such as MFA installed. It provides that seamless, transparent experience for a user that can use an agent installed. Cisco Secure Access covers a different spectrum of situations where the customer needs to protect remote access. There is also a flavor of Cisco Secure Access specific for IoT, which allows recording of the session. This is crucial for contractors when they need to access facilities offshore. This is a classic example of remote access where we cannot install any agent for the subcontractor, but we can record the session for whatever they do.

There are a couple of features that are currently the most valuable in Cisco Secure Access. First of all, the solution deploys very fast, and the other one is the performance. Cisco Secure Access adopted the QUIC protocol, which allows anyone, even when working from a plane with a very bad connection, to perform very well because it is basically a protocol that is adopted now by the industry. Cisco used it in Cisco Secure Access well before other vendors. It is a brilliant solution that allows branches, for example, to connect to cloud resources much easier than using the traditional way of communicating through a firewall.

I have worked with the Experience Insights feature, experience monitoring, and DEM powered by ThousandEyes with Cisco Secure Access. This is another acquisition that Cisco did some years ago, and it has been really instrumental for lots of companies to find out where the communication problem sits. One of the problems the customer faces is identifying where the communication problem is. If we start from the endpoint, we know the endpoint reached the access point, then the network, and then the provider and the internet. However, identifying where the problem is in the communication was difficult. Until ThousandEyes was adopted, it was pretty much a blame game between the provider and the customer, saying who was at fault or where the problem in the communication was. ThousandEyes allows us to say definitively, "This is the provider issue because we can see our network is working very fine until that point," or identify if the problem is in the network. It worked very well in several situations. Cisco in-built ThousandEyes in products such as Meraki and Cisco Secure Access, and you can see it basically now in-built in any product because that visibility is crucial.

Cisco is expanding Cisco Secure Access by protecting AI, especially the AI agent. This has been announced in the keynote this week. I am looking forward to knowing what Cisco is doing about protecting agentic AI. Cisco Secure Access is one of the best products to provide these kinds of capabilities because of the flexibility of the deployment and the ease of installation. It is quite pervasive because it reaches and protects the user wherever they are. For the agent, this is quite a crucial requirement.

For AI, I believe this capability is still in the roadmap for Cisco Secure Access. It should be announced possibly in the second quarter. This is something that, if asked how Cisco Secure Access can be improved, I would say the capability to protect agentic AI is a key improvement area.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Access for six years.

Some years ago, I worked with the technical support for Cisco Secure Access. However, I am now more of a consultant, so I am happy to advise our customers on the best technology available.

The setup generally depends on the scale of complexity, but if you go for a standard deployment of Cisco Secure Access, a couple of hours is all that is needed to have the system going. Depending on the complexity of the policy you want to configure, that could be longer. However, it is amazing that the same day you install the product, you can really use it.

Cisco Secure Access is more than a mature product at this point. Cisco capitalized on the experience with Umbrella, which was basically the previous product, and expanded with capabilities to provide a very effective connection for remote workers wherever they are and using technology such as QUIC, which is adopted by Google. It provides not just security, but also very effective communication wherever the user is working from. I would rate Cisco Secure Access as a nine out of ten because I believe there is always room for improvement, and I am really looking forward to what is coming regarding agentic AI, as I think Cisco Secure Access will play a lead role for that.

My company's use case for Cisco Secure Access is for teleworkers in general and for third parties.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access is the possibility to work from anywhere, along with the posture for the host, so the check on the posture. Cisco Secure Access has helped improve my organization overall by changing the way we work; we can work from everywhere.

To improve Cisco Secure Access, I would suggest simplifying the need for different components that Cisco has tried to implement; for example, to have Cisco Secure Access, it is necessary to have AnyConnect, ISE, and Duo, meaning there are various products that need to integrate to achieve the same result, unlike the all-in-one compact products from other vendors.

Inside the Cisco ecosystem, to have Cisco Secure Access, you need several components, which are different products; integrating these Cisco products for the zero trust network presents the main problem, especially since we have many applications that are on-premises, and for the latest version of Cisco Secure Access, the traffic must go to the cloud and then come back to access on-premises applications, creating delays and performance concerns.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for three years.

The stability of Cisco Secure Access is acceptable; it's very comfortable and perfect. There is no downtime for Cisco Secure Access; we are very happy with it.

We can scale with our business needs. Scaling Cisco Secure Access is a main pain point, as it requires integrating different products which makes it not so easy.

I have engaged with their customer service or support. My impression of Cisco support is very positive; we are very happy, and the SLAs are perfect. I would rate Cisco support as a 10; it's always a 10.

We have evaluated other products before.

We have used Zscaler and Fortinet products as well. We chose Cisco Secure Access over Zscaler because we were more used to Cisco; we were traditional and we believe in Cisco.

I do not use the AI Assist feature of Cisco Secure Access yet. I do not use VPN as a service for Cisco Secure Access, but we use AnyConnect. We do not use the Experience Insights feature of Cisco Secure Access, like the digital experience monitoring powered by ThousandEyes. I have only integrated the ISE, the Cisco Identity Secure Engine, with Cisco Secure Access so far.

The ISE has impacted our incident resolution time. The impact comes from the nice dashboard of ISE, which allows us to view the problem and generates reports on the issue, so it helps the resolution time. I am aware of the pricing and licensing. Comparing to other vendors, I find the licensing part for Zscaler much easier, while from the price perspective, I would say Cisco is more affordable; however, Cisco Secure Access offers different products to achieve the same goal, whereas Zscaler is all-in-one and much easier to integrate.

We need more of a hybrid cloud model for Cisco Secure Access, as many companies still operate on-premises and require that traffic for on-premises applications stays local instead of routing through the cloud. I would rate this review a 10.

We operate in the financial industry, specifically banking, where security is a primary concern when it comes to financial transactions. Our use case always prioritizes security requirements specific to the financial industry.

Cisco Secure Access offers exceptional ease of use as its most valuable feature. The single pane dashboard gives my team the ability to perform tasks on one dashboard and execute changes with a shorter duration. This is particularly beneficial because we have multiple layers of security when it comes to the data center, which helps us capture requirements in a single go.

Our security posture has improved significantly with Cisco Secure Access. Being in the financial industry, we undergo multiple audits from various regulatory bodies and government agencies. Cisco Secure Access helps us answer their questions and meet their requirements.

From a licensing perspective, there could be some enhancement. What I have observed from Cisco regarding licensing and pricing is that there are multiple license tiers, whether Essential, Advanced, or multiple layers of licenses. This creates confusion about which license type we need and which type this product requires. Some clarity or enhancement in this area could provide greater visibility and peace of mind.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for around five years.

Cisco Secure Access is reliable and helps us execute policies during runtime without any downtime.

Cisco Secure Access is scalable.

I did not evaluate any other solutions because we run most of our products from Cisco, which helps us achieve quick adoption.

I would not characterize Cisco Secure Access as easy or difficult to deploy. When it comes to security, you need to understand the application requirement, the flow, the requirement from the user's perspective, and how the data will flow. This understanding helps us gain visibility so we can deploy exact rules.

I do not currently use it as a VPN as a service. I plan to use it for the hybrid private access feature, but it has not been adopted yet.

We have started a proof of concept for using ZTNA because we were using other products from the Zero Trust perspective, but we are currently in the phase of running a proof of concept to roll out this functionality as well.

I would rate this product an overall score of eight out of ten.

The main use cases for Cisco Secure Access are placing the product and attempting to place the product for the customer. People who do not have an SSE solution and do not know what it is need to be educated about it. I have to explain what it is and what the advantages are. There are two situations: people who do not know that they need it already and people who really need it and do not know which product to choose. Therefore, I guide them to a Cisco product.

The first targets for Cisco Secure Access are organizations with remote customers who are working from different places. They have many on-premises apps and many SaaS apps. The benefits are that people just need to connect and they have their whole environment available for everybody. It feels the same as if they were in the office, plus they are safe against malware.

A feature of Cisco Secure Access that I appreciate the most is its remote browser isolation. When I show them remote browser isolation, they see nothing different initially. Then, you have to look down right where there is a small Cisco blue square with text stating this page has been isolated, and suddenly the customers think that is wonderful. It is one of my favorite features because it puts a browser in the background. Many customers already have something similar to browser in a box, but it is local. When I explain to them that they can have the same feature in the cloud, which is safer, they appreciate it.

The good thing about Cisco Secure Access in terms of multi-organization management capability is that if you have multiple organizations, they were working with different softwares. Now they just work with one software, which is beneficial. It is pretty easy to manage. That is why I prefer to use it. Since you have one software, you do not need different teams. There is just one team working on the software. You can have two teams as a backup, but ultimately it is just one team for one software, which is good.

I am not using the AI assistant feature for Cisco Secure Access because it is not working properly. Sometimes if you write something very basic such as where can I find the connectors, it responds to go there. However, as soon as I target a specific case, it responds that it is unavailable at the moment.

Regarding the AI Access feature, I would say it has room for improvement. It is not bad; it is good, but it could be better.

In general, I think Cisco Secure Access can be improved. I have worked a lot with Cisco Secure Connect, which is very intuitive and easy. With Cisco Secure Access, things are very complicated. Everybody who has experience with Cisco Secure Connect and touches Cisco Secure Access responds with surprise and confusion about why this is needed and where to find things. I believe there is room for improvement. You have workflows, which is already good, but you can push the workflows even more. It is just the basics, and workflows with really specific problems and specific instances would be good.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for two years.

Regarding crashes, bugs, or downtime, I do not think we faced any related to Cisco Secure Access as far as I remember. We saw downtime because customers were doing their own things, but not because of the software.

I do not know about the help desk ticket volume since in most cases, we are in direct contact with the customer. It could be, but I do not think so.

My experience with deploying Cisco Secure Access involves starting a proof of concept when the customer is almost ready to buy. I have a flyer that I set up to explain how it is going to work. Before starting the proof of concept, I create a questionnaire, asking how many private apps they have and how many remote workers they have, and I gather all the information. We usually conduct a proof of concept with the customers, meeting their requirements in a short amount of time. As soon as the customer is satisfied, they can test in real time how it is going to function. You also have to educate the customer on what is new, explaining how the traffic apps work, including blocking pages, warnings, and all features. It is fundamental during the proof of concept, as the customer has many questions about why certain things are done a particular way. That is pretty much how the deployment works. We do the proof of concept, present the software, take the formula to meet the requirements, put them in place, and as soon as it is ready to go, we make the switch and it runs.

I believe it is too soon to say that I have seen a return on investment from having Cisco Secure Access. The good thing with it is that you can also place other products, such as Cisco Duo for example. Today, I saw Neil present something at the convention, and now you can combine Cisco Duo directory with Cisco Secure Access. So, there will be a return on investment, but it is too soon.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Cisco Secure Access is positive. It is good because you want to push Cisco Secure Access, and regarding the price, it is very much below other products. So for the price, it is good now. I recommend keeping it that way.

Since I am working for the Cisco competence center, I did not consider another solution before choosing Cisco Secure Access. We just sell Cisco, so no Palo Alto, no FortiGate, no Zscaler.

I definitely use VPNs in Cisco Secure Access.

The transition from VPN to ZTNA with Cisco Secure Access has not really influenced users. People use the VPN to connect so they can directly access their on-premises apps. ZTNA is more for contractors and everything for the browser, but we do not really use it.

I use it in a client-based manner.

I am not really using the hybrid private access feature for varying the enforcement location for ZTNA private traffic right now.

My experience with the Insight feature, particularly digital experience and monitoring, is positive since ThousandEyes is already included in Cisco Secure Access. Customers can see a lot of details and monitoring, and they appreciate it. They do not usually use it, but they can see everything. So this is good.

It has impacted the incident resolution time since we have not had an incident regarding our customers. So, I would say it has potentially helped.

I have not integrated Cisco Identity Intelligence at this time.

For everything overall regarding Cisco Secure Access, I would rate it an eight. It is not a bad product, but for certain things, there is definitely room for improvement.

Our main use case for Cisco Secure Access is remote access to the company.

The features of Cisco Secure Access that I like the most are the DART, which is an engine that inspects the hardware and software on the end client.

I appreciate that feature because I can ensure that the user is connecting from a company device or laptop with all security features up to date before they can connect to our local network.

The reason my company needs Cisco Secure Access is security. We want to improve our security posture and achieve zero trust.

There may be features that need further development, such as AI or integration with other products, but I cannot provide specific recommendations for improvement.

I would say that over the last 15 years, Cisco Secure Access is the best solution for remote access because I work with other companies as well, but Cisco Secure Access is the best one. It works and does not require improvement.

Cisco Secure Access has impacted our help desk ticket volume and end-user experience because sometimes users encounter issues. Since we have many features activated, users sometimes cannot connect or attempt to connect multiple times, which generates service desk tickets.

I have worked with many technical engineers for Cisco Secure Access, and I think they are very professional and provide a good experience.

I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

I never seriously considered migrating away from Cisco Secure Access.

The deployment process of Cisco Secure Access is very easy because there is a wizard with seven steps that allows you to configure it, and it works without complications.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Cisco Secure Access is that you purchase it once and it works. That is why it is the best solution. You do not need to open cases or invest additional time. You simply configure it and it works.

I do not have information about the pricing, setup cost, and licensing because I am not from the sales or pre-sales team. What I know is that we are also using Cisco Duo for authentication and have a good price for our company with more than 2,000 users.

If other companies are using another company's solution, such as Palo Alto or Check Point, they should try AnyConnect and will see that it works better than other products.

In my company, from the beginning, we have used only Cisco Secure Access with no other options. From the start, it was Secure Client and AnyConnect. I would rate this product a 10 out of 10.

I use Cisco Secure Access for VPN resources in my day-to-day work to implement the VPN tunnel to the data center.

The best features Cisco Secure Access offers include stability. With 4,000 people using it and not many tickets, Cisco Secure Access has positively impacted my organization by providing stable VPN access to the data center.

This stability has led to measurable outcomes, as we have fewer tickets.

Cisco Secure Access is good, and I feel nothing more is needed for improvement. I chose a rating of nine out of ten because of the zero downtime, but that is nearly not possible, and I cannot tell you what to do better.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for eight years.

Cisco Secure Access is good, and I feel nothing more is needed for improvement.

With 4,000 people using it and not many tickets, Cisco Secure Access has positively impacted my organization by providing stable VPN access to the data center.

I will contact our partner manager if the vendor has any questions or comments about my review.

We do use VPNs in Cisco Secure Access, and we already have Zero Trust, which has influenced our transition.

Cisco Secure Access is deployed in our own on-premise data center.

We are a partner of this vendor, which represents our business relationship beyond being just a customer.

The stability has led to measurable outcomes, as we have fewer tickets.

We do use VPNs in Cisco Secure Access, and we already have Zero Trust, which has influenced our transition.

We do use VPNs in Cisco Secure Access, and we already have Zero Trust, which has influenced our transition.

I would evaluate the AI access feature of Cisco Secure Access for providing deep visibility and control over AI applications, tools, and large language models by saying we will keep an eye on it and talk to our partner manager about the use cases of the AI implementation. My advice to others looking into using Cisco Secure Access is that it is a good solution. I gave this review a rating of nine out of ten.

Cisco Secure Access serves as our main remote access tool for all of our users, which number about two and a half thousand endpoints. Our primary use case involves deploying Cisco Secure Access across all clients for connectivity, as we are a very remote organization, mainly in the UK, with many people accessing from three main sites, including working from home. Additionally, it supports all of our internet connectivity from our offices, and all of our laptops have the remote agent, so it is essential for that as well.

We have implemented the ZTNA in Cisco Secure Access. We have adopted both client-based and clientless options within Cisco Secure Access. We currently have about five or six services on a clientless basis, which aligns with what Cisco recommends, and we are working to put more behind that. The client side consists mainly of some legacy private applications that remain on-premises that we have not yet migrated to clientless.

The features of Cisco Secure Access that I appreciate the most include the posture assessment side. Being in security, I value being able to get an end posture assessment on the device to ensure it has the latest updates and can take action against devices that do not meet core requirements. Furthermore, ZTNA access is a key area that we are currently migrating to.

The benefits of these features for my company include providing flexibility, which is a primary concern for us. Security keeps all of our users secure while allowing flexibility in their work locations, ensuring they receive the same policies and centralized control regardless of location. This gives us peace of mind that we maintain control from end to end.

To improve Cisco Secure Access, I believe there should be better clarity from Cisco regarding where organizations should focus their investments. When we onboarded a year ago, we fully adopted the VPN client; in hindsight, we might have done a split focusing more on ZTNA. The direction felt unclear at the time, and after attending two or three Cisco Lives, it seems ZTNA is the main focus, yet Cisco does not provide adequate guidance on best practices that align with other organizations. There is a noticeable gap in engagement from customer success managers about upcoming features and tools. Additionally, integrating with other third parties is essential; I see limitations in our Cisco XDR platform's integrations, and consolidating everything into a single pane of glass would greatly enhance visibility. Although AI Canvas is aimed at addressing some visibility issues, they seem to be behind and require more time for development.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for just over a year.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support as very good. Although technical support has been hit and miss at times, with some technical cases taking weeks for comprehensive feedback and necessary improvements, we have also submitted feature requests that resulted in visible changes. With our established point of contact within Cisco, our experience has greatly improved; we no longer log all issues through technical cases, as we can go directly to our account managers or customer service team, which expedites resolution. Based on my interactions, I would rate the customer service and technical support an eight or nine.

The main factors that led me to choose Cisco Secure Access after Check Point included cost; Cisco was substantially cheaper, and we also had a poor experience with Check Point, which we found unreliable. We faced constant tickets and multiple versions of the same client causing inconsistent user experiences, leading to difficulties in product cohesion. Ultimately, cost was the most persuasive factor.

The deployment process of Cisco Secure Access was straightforward. Deploying the client itself was very straightforward. We encountered a few teething issues mainly due to integrating with all our data centers and replacing our firewalls simultaneously with FTD firewalls; however, Cisco Secure Access deployment itself was simple.

The biggest return on investment from Cisco Secure Access, from my perspective, is the end usability from a client perspective. The end user experiences no interaction—they simply see that it works. Ticket numbers are very low, and it operates smoothly. It is one of those tools that needs to work right out of the box, and thankfully, it does; it is reliable, and the setup time was quick and straightforward.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Cisco Secure Access has been very competitive overall; it is cheaper than what we experienced with our previous renewal, which influenced our decision to switch. Overall, it has been a very positive experience.

In the process of choosing Cisco Secure Access, we considered only two options: renewing with Check Point or switching to Cisco.

The impact of the Secure Access deployment on help desk ticket volume and the end user experience has been a big improvement overall. We previously used Check Point, and migrating to Cisco has been a very positive experience. Our account team on the Cisco side has played a significant role in our customer success journey, resulting in low ticket numbers; after an initial peak of incidents due to teething issues, we now experience very low ticket numbers on a day-to-day basis.

Regarding the AI Access feature of Cisco Secure Access for providing deep visibility and control over AI applications, tools, and large language models, we are not currently using it as we do not incorporate any application layer integrations within Cisco Secure Access at the moment. However, it is something we are working towards, as I believe it is a relatively new feature. The AI Access feature is on our wish list, and we certainly intend to implement it. We know we need to do more around the DSPM functionality, which Cisco is working on, so as that stack builds from Cisco's side, we will look for an entry point to ensure full coverage that the tool provides. Currently, it is probably a little early for us to jump in, but in six months, we might consider it.

We are not using the Hybrid Private Access feature for varying enforcement locations of ZTNA private traffic; we are aware of it, but it requires integration with Security Cloud, which we have not completed yet. This feature is on our wish list.

We do not use the DEM feature, which is Digital Experience Monitoring, but we utilize ThousandEyes, which is installed on the Cisco client.

Transitioning to Zero Trust and least-privileged principles has been made easier from some perspectives with Cisco Secure Access. The identity-first approach is a significant part of this journey, and I know Cisco's ongoing improvements over the next twelve months will benefit this process. The traditional VPN is phasing out, with ZTNA being the new standard; however, some of our legacy infrastructure poses challenges in fully adopting ZTNA.

For companies considering Cisco Secure Access as their main solution, I advise starting the conversation early. Transitioning is not straightforward; it takes time. With all the ongoing changes in the product and AI integrations, early planning is crucial. While migration can occur quickly, incorporating add-ons and extras requires more time to effectively integrate into the product. We still have not fully utilized features we have had for a year, as we are still assessing their impact and exploring potential duplication with existing tools.

Regarding how Secure Access has helped prevent users from uploading sensitive and proprietary information to LLMs, we have not utilized that feature; we currently use Microsoft Defender Purview for this purpose. I understand it is a relatively new feature in Cisco, but we have not adopted it to that level yet.

I would rate this product overall as a nine out of ten.

My use case for Cisco Secure Access is to replace our on-premises, not site-to-site, remote access SSL VPN as we are going from on-premises to cloud service.

The second use case is to replace our Umbrella service, as we currently use Umbrella and will migrate to Cisco Secure Access as well, along with all the policies.

I consider the most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access to be that it merged everything into one dashboard, the Cisco Secure Access dashboard. Previously, we had web access in one location and remote access in another, and we could not link them to each other. Now everything is in one place, and we can base the access control on usernames because we have the Azure Active Directory integration. We can also build policies based on that and can see or identify the impacted users.

Cisco Secure Access benefits our organization by offering Points of Presence close to our employees because we are spread across the world. Until now, we had only European gateways, so traffic had to go from India, for example, over to Europe and then sometimes back, which was delaying a lot. With Cisco Secure Access, we have a presence close to the user.

What we really find challenging is that we do not have granular role-based access control models. The only options we have are full admin or read-only. We have different departments in the company that have different responsibilities. While we as a networking team are full admins, we do not want to manage the policies regarding which websites are allowed and what is not allowed. That should be managed by our compliance team.

The granular access issue is coming from the product limitation at the moment, as it does not offer us the option to tell it that a particular role can only manage websites, allowed sites, and blocked sites. Categories or something similar are not possible.

If I had to improve the product, that would definitely be role-based access control. Though from another point of view, this limitation may also be a benefit because it forces us to implement our own front-end to use API calls. Using API, you can limit the access to that particular key.

I would rate Cisco Secure Access as very stable until now. We have not seen any service degradation during the maintenance activities that Cisco performs, which seems to happen frequently because we receive notification messages. However, we do not experience any service degradation, so that feels stable at the moment.

I find the scalability of Cisco Secure Access is working well at the moment. The main benefit is that we do not need to care for hardware anymore in the future, such as lifecycle management. However, the migration is a little challenging because the technical background that we had, such as the routing and what happens there, is not really visible to us in the cloud service. Those are the challenges, but we are working with TAC and onboarding people that are assigned to us at the moment from Cisco.

My experience with Cisco's technical support is good because the person assigned to us is guiding us. He understands what our use case is and he is guiding us on what we should configure and what we should not configure.

Before, we were using Cisco Firepower as SSL gateways.

I would describe my experience deploying Cisco Secure Access as working well, though we are hitting bugs. I have the feeling that whenever we explore a new product from Cisco, we hit a bug. At the moment, we are dealing with challenges because a new feature that was implemented is to support multi-tenancy. When we originally started, that feature was not available, so we had only one organization. Now we have a multi-organization feature, so we were migrated to it. However, we feel that with this migration, something was left behind that is not working properly. In our original organization, we have issues applying permissions for users, and we always have to raise TAC cases with the people who help us resolve it. They are currently working on that.

I have not seen a return on investment yet, as we are still building. We are in an extended pilot phase at the moment, where one country, India, is migrated to this solution, and we are deploying one by one, starting with less critical sites first, and then we will see.

We did not evaluate any other solutions before. It was basically a move recommendation by Cisco since we stuck with Cisco, as we had a subscription before. With the contract renewal, Cisco pushed us in a direction where we could keep using the old environment for free as part of the renewal, but we decided to go straight to the new product and migrate.

We use VPN as a Service for our users to remote access our company, and web browsing is going through Cisco Secure Access as well. I am not using the AI Assist feature in Cisco Secure Access yet. I am not aware of VPNaaS in Cisco Secure Access. We are not using Zero Trust yet, as that will be a stage three. First, we want to get rid of the on-premises VPN gateways and then start developing Zero Trust, so it is not in use at the moment. I am not sure what Hybrid Private Access means, but what we have is an integration from Cisco Secure Access to our SD-WAN, where the Cisco Secure Access Points of Presence are directly connected with our SD-WAN cloud, optimizing the communication. I am not sure if that is what is meant by Hybrid Private Access. I would rate this product overall a six out of ten.

My adventure with Cisco Secure Access started when I began my work, and my main use cases are focused on ensuring secure connectivity and protecting sensitive data.

My favorite feature of Cisco Secure Access is incredibly beneficial for a company, as it enhances security and user experience significantly.

Using ZTNA in Cisco Secure Access has positively affected my transition and my clients' transition to Zero Trust and least privilege principles, reinforcing the security posture.

The impact of Cisco Secure Access deployment on help desk ticket volume and the end-user experience has been remarkable, and I am using the AI assistant feature, which streamlines support. Cisco Secure Access has helped in preventing users from uploading sensitive and proprietary information to LLMs effectively, and I have heard from my clients regarding how they see it. They find that it works well and meets their security requirements.

In terms of usability and efficiency, the multi-organization management capability of Cisco Secure is robust. I believe Cisco Secure Access can be improved by changing some features, enhancing the user interface, and streamlining reporting.

I used VPNaaS in Cisco Secure Access, and it has greatly influenced my transition from VPN to ZTNA by simplifying secure access for users.

I evaluate the customer service and technical support of Cisco as consistently reliable.

I would describe the deployment experience of Cisco Secure Access as straightforward, without major challenges.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Access is the significant reduction in security risks and improved operational efficiency.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Cisco Secure Access has been favorable.

I have worked with other tools that do similar things to Cisco Secure Access.

My advice to other companies thinking of deploying or getting Cisco Secure Access is to thoroughly assess their needs and goals, as it is crucial for maximizing the benefits. I gave this review a rating of 9.

We are about to start up with Cisco Secure Access now. We started this last year, but we have a lot of Umbrella that we are moving over to Cisco Secure Access. The main use cases for Cisco Secure Access are mostly the internet, but we are also looking for the client part, including ZTNA and so on, to move over that part from the traditional SSL VPNs.

The feature of Cisco Secure Access that I appreciate the most is the visibility and the ability to have one rule set for all the traffic. You can see the LAN connections and get them with SGT tags. This means you have all the things, not just your managed clients streaming through the policy set.

The features I have mentioned benefit our company overall by giving us one single pane of glass. We can see all the rule sets. We are partners, so we are building for our end customers and they appreciate having one single control point of the network. This is the most important aspect.

I am not using the AI assistant feature of Cisco Secure Access much yet. I think it is a little bit limited right now. This is something that can be improved, and I think it will be.

I hope there will be a good way to transform Umbrella installations over to Cisco Secure Access to improve the transition. I have not looked much into that part yet, but I hope there will be a smooth transition. Otherwise, that is an improvement that needs to be made.

We are about to start up with Cisco Secure Access right now, with the migration beginning last year.

Before using Cisco Secure Access, we were using Umbrella, which is also Cisco. We used Umbrella and also have a lot of traditional VPN as a service, SSL VPN and so on. We are coming from that part and moving to ZTNA. We are in a transition.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Access is that we have not reached that point yet. As we have end customers, it is more up to them to say, but we think that it would be a better improvement and a better experience for the users, and probably fewer tickets and easier troubleshooting. I think it will provide a return on investment in the big picture.

My experience with the pricing, the setup costs, and the licensing of Cisco Secure Access is that it is not cheap, but I do not have exact numbers on what it costs. Comparing to Umbrella, I think we are getting a more future-proof solution, and I hope it is worth the money.

We did not consider other solutions before choosing Cisco Secure Access because we are almost 100% into Cisco with our services. We are using Cisco SD-WAN and Catalyst, for example, and we are looking forward to integrating that with Cisco Secure Access also. We are also using ICE and so on. We are quite integrated into the ecosystem with the services we are delivering, so we will use Cisco Secure Access for that part.

The impact of Cisco Secure Access on our help desk ticket volume and the end-user experience has been evolving. I do not have numbers for the help desk, but I think it is going in the right direction.

The deployment of Cisco Secure Access requires that if you do the internet part, you have to get the customer involved. They have to know which applications work well with a proxy and so on. For the ZTNA part and the client part, it is the same. You have to know your traffic patterns and so on, and you may have to start with a bigger, more allowing rule set and turn it down afterwards.

My advice to other companies considering Cisco Secure Access is to look over their needs and see what great opportunities it can bring to the company. The single pane of glass could be beneficial. You will also get your services together in one appliance, and not so spread out. I would rate this solution an 8 out of 10.