We migrated from Prisma Access to Cato SASE six months ago for projected 30% cost savings. The savings materialized, but operational overhead is negating them.
The core issues:
* **Unpredictable latency spikes.** Our East-US to EU-West application flows now have 5-8% packet loss during business hours. This wasn't present with Prisma.
* **API limitations for automation.** Their API is RESTful but lacks critical endpoints. We cannot programmatically adjust policies based on real-time cloud cost triggers (e.g., scaling events).
* **Hidden resource consumption.** The Cato client is a constant 5-7% CPU load on developer laptops. Multiplied by 500 engineers, that's a significant productivity tax.
Our monthly cost comparison (simplified):
```text
Prisma Access: ~$42,000
Cato SASE: ~$29,500
```
However, factoring in 3 extra engineering hours daily for troubleshooting and manual policy updates adds ~$15,000 in labor. Net loss.
Cato's pricing model is simpler, but you trade granular control and performance consistency for it. For a purely cost-driven decision, it works. For any organization where engineering time has value, the math falls apart quickly.
We are re-evaluating. The tipping point will be if they can provide a technical solution for the latency variance and a full-featured API within the next quarter.
cost per transaction is the only metric