Just wrapped up a 6-month migration from Zscaler ZIA to Absolute Secure Access. Goal was to reduce agent fatigue and get better visibility into device posture for our remote workforce. It's been mostly a win.
Key findings after full rollout:
* **Deployment was straightforward.** The Absolute agent consolidation (we already used their persistence module) was the main selling point. One less agent to manage.
* **Performance is comparable** to Zscaler for standard web traffic. No user complaints on slowdowns.
* **Posture checks are more granular.** We can now tie network access directly to specific security software states (e.g., if CrowdStrike is running). This was clunkier with Zscaler.
* **Cost came in about 15% lower** for our user count, but that's heavily dependent on your existing Absolute licensing.
The downsides:
* The reporting dashboard isn't as intuitive as Zscaler's. Took the team a few weeks to get used to it.
* We had to rebuild all our URL filtering policies from scratch. No direct import tool.
Bottom line: If you're already in the Absolute ecosystem for endpoint management, the migration is a logical step and simplifies your stack. If you're not, the value proposition is less clear-cut.
af
Optimize or die.
Hey, this is a great thread to stumble on. I'm a security architect at a 250-person fintech shop, and we actually went the other way - from a different client-based solution into Zscaler ZIA about a year ago. We don't use Absolute, but I've got a close peer who does, so I've seen both sides.
Here's my take on the key points for anyone weighing this decision:
* **Ecosystem Stickiness is Real:** Your point on the Absolute agent is the whole ballgame. If you're already paying for and managing their persistence module, the consolidation is a massive win. If you're not, you're adding a new endpoint agent, not removing one. That changes the calculus completely.
* **True Cost Comparison:** The 15% savings you saw tracks. In my experience, Zscaler's list pricing is often higher, but they negotiate hard on 3-year commits. The real cost for most isn't the per-user license, but the engineering hours for policy migration, which you confirmed. Budget 2-3 months of a senior engineer's time if you're moving policies manually.
* **Granular Posture vs. Deep Inspection:** This is the core trade-off. Absolute (from what I've seen) wins on tying access to specific device states. Zscaler wins on inline traffic inspection. For us, seeing and controlling the actual content of SSL flows was non-negotiable. If your primary need is "is the device healthy?" Absolute's method is more direct.
* **Support and Escalation:** My one gripe with Zscaler is that unless you have a premium support tier, you can get stuck in portal tickets. For a critical outage, you need an account manager to light a fire. I've heard Absolute's support is more consistently hands-on, given their roots in endpoint.
My pick is still Zscaler, but only for orgs where deep, inline inspection of all traffic (including SaaS apps) is the primary security goal. If the main driver is reducing agent sprawl and you're already an Absolute shop, your migration path makes perfect sense.
To make the call clean, tell us: 1) What's your biggest threat model - compromised devices or compromised user web sessions? 2) Do you have a team dedicated to tweaking and maintaining network policies, or do you need "set and forget"?
Always A/B test.
Great to hear the migration went well! That bit about rebuilding URL filtering policies from scratch sounds like a real pain. Did you have a huge list of custom categories, or was it mostly about re-creating the logic? I'd be worried about missing something during a manual rebuild like that.
Also, the reporting dashboard - was it just a learning curve thing, or are you finding it actively less useful even now that you're used to it? Trying to understand if that's a temporary or permanent downside.
You missed the biggest hidden cost.
>they negotiate hard on 3-year commits
This is the trap. That aggressive discount locks you in. When year three rolls around, you're looking at another painful migration or a 40% price hike to stay. Their renewal pricing is predatory.
Absolute's posture is granular, yes. But I've seen it break in production because of third-party software updates. If CrowdStrike or your AV pushes a new sensor version, your posture check logic can fail silently. That's not a win, it's a new single point of failure.
read the fine print
"A 15% cost reduction heavily dependent on existing Absolute licensing" is the key phrase they buried. That's not a win for most shops, it's a vendor lock-in discount. You're just moving money between their own product lines.
And rebuilding all URL policies from scratch isn't just a pain, it's a massive audit risk. How do you prove your new rule set matches the old one for compliance? You can't. That's months of re-validation they didn't factor into the timeline or cost.
Your stack is too complicated.