CASB platforms have expanded considerably beyond their original role of providing visibility into cloud application use.
Most of the products I reviewed can discover SaaS applications and help protect sensitive data. They can also give security teams greater control over how employees use cloud services. Many now extend those capabilities to generative AI applications as well.
What separates these platforms is how they provide that protection. Some operate as part of much larger SSE or SASE architectures, while others have particularly close ties to an existing identity or security ecosystem. The depth of their data loss prevention (DLP), application controls, and cloud visibility also varies.
I compared Netskope One CASB, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation CASB, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Skyhigh Security CASB, and Cisco Secure Access CASB to see how those differences affect what organizations actually get from each platform.
The right choice ultimately depends on the cloud services you need to protect and the security infrastructure you already have in place.
Best CASB solutions for 2026 compared
CASB | Best for | Deployment/approach | Overall score |
| Netskope One CASB | SaaS visibility and granular cloud controls | Inline + API; part of Netskope One SSE | 4.8/5 |
| Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation CASB | Enterprise SASE integration | Inline + API; integrated with Prisma Access/NGFW | 4.7/5 |
| Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps | Microsoft-centric environments | API + Conditional Access session controls | 4.7/5 |
| Skyhigh Security CASB | Data protection and cloud application controls | API + proxy-based controls; part of Skyhigh SSE | 4.6/5 |
| Cisco Secure Access CASB | Cisco-centric SSE deployments | Multimode CASB within Cisco Secure Access | 4.6/5 |
Netskope One CASB
Best for SaaS visibility and granular cloud controls
Overall score: 4.8/5
- Cloud visibility and discovery: 5.0/5
- Data protection: 4.9/5
- Access and policy controls: 4.9/5
- Threat protection: 4.7/5
- Integrations and usability: 4.6/5
- Pricing and transparency: 4.3/5
Netskope One CASB goes deeper than simply identifying which SaaS applications employees use. Its inline and API-based controls provide visibility into active cloud usage and data already stored in supported SaaS services.
Netskope’s Zero Trust Engine can distinguish between applications and individual application instances, including corporate and personal accounts. An organization could allow employees to use an approved corporate cloud storage service while preventing sensitive data from being uploaded to personal accounts. Policies can also account for who the user is, what device they’re using, and the sensitivity of the data involved.
Data protection builds on that level of control. Netskope says its DLP technology includes more than 3,000 data classifiers and supports 1,800 file types. It can identify sensitive information using methods such as exact data matching and file fingerprinting. OCR and machine-learning-assisted classification provide additional detection options.
Netskope has extended many of these controls to generative AI. Security teams can identify unmanaged AI use and inspect interactions with public LLMs. They can also distinguish corporate from personal AI instances and apply access or DLP policies accordingly.
User feedback generally reinforces Netskope’s strengths in cloud visibility and data protection. Reviewers also indicate that deploying and configuring its more advanced capabilities can require additional effort.
Pros
- Excellent visibility into sanctioned and unsanctioned SaaS usage
- Granular controls based on users, apps, instances, activity, data, and devices
- Strong inline and API-based DLP
- Extensive cloud application risk intelligence
- Granular controls for generative AI and shadow AI
Cons
- Initial deployment may require additional planning and configuration
- Advanced controls may take time for new administrators to learn
Pricing: Netskope does not publish standard CASB pricing. Organizations need to request a custom quote based on their deployment and selected Netskope One services.
Pro tip: Before choosing Netskope, identify which SaaS applications require the most granular controls. Organizations with employees who use multiple accounts or handle sensitive data across cloud services are more likely to benefit from deeper application-level visibility.
Final verdict: Netskope One CASB is a solid choice for organizations with complex SaaS environments. Its strength lies in providing detailed visibility into cloud activity and detailed policy context to control how users interact with applications without relying solely on broad allow-or-block decisions.
Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation CASB
Best for enterprise SASE integration
Overall score: 4.7/5
- Cloud visibility and discovery: 4.8/5
- Data protection: 4.9/5
- Access and policy controls: 4.8/5
- Threat protection: 4.9/5
- Integrations and usability: 4.6/5
- Pricing and transparency: 4.1/5
Palo Alto Networks approaches CASB as part of a broader security architecture rather than an isolated cloud security tool. Next-Generation CASB works with Prisma Access and supports Palo Alto Networks firewalls.
SaaS Security Inline discovers unsanctioned applications and applies controls as users interact with them. SaaS Security API extends visibility to data stored in supported cloud applications, while SaaS Security Posture Management identifies risky configurations. Enterprise DLP provides another layer of protection across SaaS and IaaS environments.
Application discovery is one of the platform’s stronger capabilities. Palo Alto Networks says SaaS Security Inline can identify more than 74,800 SaaS applications using machine learning. Organizations can then control access based on the application and the user. Policies can also incorporate device posture and user activity, providing administrators with more context when deciding which actions to allow.
Advanced WildFire adds malware analysis to the platform. For existing Palo Alto Networks customers, these capabilities can make CASB policies part of a larger security strategy rather than requiring a separate set of cloud security tools.
Reviewers generally highlight cloud visibility, data protection, and centralized management as strengths. Cost and the effort required to configure more advanced capabilities are more common concerns. Some reviewers also report limitations with specific monitoring and platform functions.
Pros
- Tight integration with Prisma Access and Palo Alto Networks NGFWs
- Strong Enterprise DLP capabilities
- Inline, API-based, and SSPM protection
- Broad SaaS application discovery
- Integrated WildFire malware and threat analysis
Cons
- Most seamless integration is within the Palo Alto Networks ecosystem
- Multiple components may require additional planning during deployment
Pricing: Licensing and pricing depend on whether CASB is deployed with Prisma Access or Palo Alto Networks NGFWs.
Pro tip: Review which CASB capabilities are included in the license you are considering. Palo Alto Networks offers several licensing options, and features such as SaaS Security Inline, Enterprise DLP, and SSPM can be included through different packages.
Final verdict: Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation CASB is a natural fit for enterprises that want cloud application security to operate alongside their existing network and SASE protections. Its strength lies in integrating cloud application controls and data protection into a broader security architecture rather than treating CASB as a separate security function.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps
Best for Microsoft-centric environments
Overall score: 4.7/5
- Cloud visibility and discovery: 4.7/5
- Data protection: 4.7/5
- Access and policy controls: 4.8/5
- Threat protection: 4.7/5
- Integrations and usability: 4.8/5
- Pricing and transparency: 4.1/5
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps becomes most compelling when paired with Microsoft Entra. Together, they can use identity context to make access decisions and control what users can do during active cloud sessions.
Conditional Access App Control is central to that approach. With the required Defender for Cloud Apps and Microsoft Entra ID P1 licensing, an organization could allow someone using an unmanaged device to access a cloud application while restricting actions such as downloading, copying, or printing sensitive information. Authentication requirements can also be reevaluated before sensitive actions are allowed.
Microsoft Entra provides the identity context behind those decisions. Conditional Access can evaluate the user and application along with factors such as location. Sessions requiring additional controls can then be routed through Defender for Cloud Apps for real-time enforcement.
Defender for Cloud Apps also covers more traditional CASB requirements through cloud discovery and shadow IT visibility. SaaS Security Posture Management helps identify configuration risks, while threat protection adds another layer of monitoring. These capabilities can feed into the broader Microsoft Defender environment rather than operating as a separate security system.
Reviewers frequently point to Microsoft integration and cloud visibility as strengths. More advanced configurations can introduce a learning curve, particularly for organizations that are less familiar with Microsoft’s security stack. Extending the platform beyond a Microsoft-centric environment may also require additional setup.
Pros
- Deep integration with Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Entra
- Strong Conditional Access and session controls
- Extensive cloud discovery and shadow IT visibility
- Integrated SaaS threat detection and protection
- Native integration with Microsoft Defender XDR
Cons
- Best suited to Microsoft-centric environments
- Advanced configurations may require additional setup
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is available as a standalone license or through select Microsoft security and enterprise licensing packages. Organizations using Conditional Access App Control also need Microsoft Entra ID P1 or an eligible package that includes it. Costs therefore depend on the organization's existing Microsoft licensing and the capabilities it plans to use.
Pro tip: Check your existing Microsoft licensing before comparing costs with standalone CASB products. Defender for Cloud Apps may already be available through a broader Microsoft security package, which can change the economics of adding CASB capabilities.
Final verdict: Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps makes the most sense when identity is already central to an organization's cloud security strategy. Its connection with Entra allows security teams to move beyond simply discovering risky SaaS activity and apply controls during active user sessions. For organizations already standardized on Microsoft security, CASB can be a more integrated part of access control rather than another standalone security layer.
Skyhigh Security CASB
Best for data protection and cloud application controls
Overall score: 4.6/5
- Cloud visibility and discovery: 4.6/5
- Data protection: 4.9/5
- Access and policy controls: 4.7/5
- Threat protection: 4.5/5
- Integrations and usability: 4.4/5
- Pricing and transparency: 4.0/5
Protecting sensitive data is a major focus of Skyhigh Security CASB. Its controls cover data stored in supported SaaS applications as well as information moving between users and cloud services.
Skyhigh accomplishes this through a combination of API integrations and proxy-based controls. APIs allow the platform to examine data already stored in supported applications, while proxy technologies can enforce policies during active cloud sessions. This gives organizations multiple ways to protect sanctioned use of SaaS rather than relying on a single enforcement method.
DLP is central to that approach. Organizations can identify sensitive information and control how it is accessed or shared. Skyhigh can also monitor user activity for potentially risky behavior. For organizations using the broader Skyhigh Security Service Edge platform, these protections can extend beyond SaaS to other parts of the environment.
This approach makes Skyhigh a solid choice when protecting sensitive information is the primary reason for deploying a CASB. Rather than treating cloud discovery as the end goal, the platform emphasizes maintaining control over data as employees interact with cloud services.
Online reviews generally reinforce Skyhigh’s strengths in data security and integrations. Configuration and management can introduce a learning curve, while some reviewers identify reporting as an area for improvement.
Pros
- Strong DLP and sensitive-data controls
- Protects data in motion and at rest
- API and proxy-based cloud controls
- Consistent policies across multiple cloud services
- Integration with the broader Skyhigh SSE platform
Cons
- Advanced configurations may require additional setup
- Reporting capabilities may not meet every organization’s needs
Pricing: Organizations need to request a custom quote based on their deployment requirements.
Pro tip: During a proof of concept, test Skyhigh against the SaaS applications that contain your most sensitive information. This will give you a better sense of how its policies work with your actual data and user activity rather than evaluating DLP capabilities on paper.
Final verdict: Skyhigh Security CASB makes the most sense when protecting sensitive cloud data is the primary objective. Its strength lies in maintaining control over sensitive information throughout its use in SaaS environments, making it especially relevant for organizations with stringent data protection requirements.
Cisco Secure Access CASB
Best for Cisco-centric SSE deployments
Overall score: 4.6/5
- Cloud visibility and discovery: 4.6/5
- Data protection: 4.7/5
- Access and policy controls: 4.7/5
- Threat protection: 4.7/5
- Integrations and usability: 4.6/5
- Pricing and transparency: 4.0/5
Cisco approaches CASB as one part of a broader SSE strategy. Its CASB capabilities are built into Secure Access alongside ZTNA and secure web gateway. Organizations can add protections such as firewall-as-a-service and remote browser isolation within the same platform, rather than deploying CASB as a separate security layer.
Within that architecture, Secure Access provides visibility into cloud application use and the risks associated with individual services. Administrators can monitor activity and manage SaaS tenants. Cisco also provides controls for generative AI and can identify potentially risky OAuth plug-ins and extensions connected to Microsoft 365 and Google environments.
Data protection extends beyond SaaS traffic. Secure Access can inspect sensitive information moving through internet and private applications, while API integrations provide additional coverage for data stored in supported cloud services. Cisco says its DLP includes more than 1,200 built-in identifiers for personally identifiable information across 77 countries.
Integration with Cisco’s broader ecosystem is another advantage. Secure Access integrates with technologies such as Cisco SD-WAN and ISE, while connections with Splunk and ThousandEyes can bring additional security and digital experience information into the environment.
Online feedback generally points to Cisco integration and centralized management as strengths. Some reviewers report a learning curve around policy configuration and management. Reviewers also identify navigation and logging as areas for improvement. Some report limitations with certain third-party integrations as well.
Pros
- CASB capabilities integrated into a broader SSE platform
- Strong cloud application discovery and granular controls
- Integrated DLP across SaaS and other traffic
- Native integration with Cisco networking and security products
- Controls for OAuth applications and generative AI
Cons
- Best suited to organizations adopting broader SSE capabilities
- Advanced policy configuration may require additional setup
Pricing: Cisco Secure Access is sold as a subscription and can be licensed as a broader SSE solution or through Secure Internet Access and Secure Private Access packages, with Essentials and Advantage configurations and optional add-ons. Pricing varies by licensing model, package, user or site count, and selected capabilities, so organizations should request a quote based on their deployment.
Pro tip: Evaluate Secure Access based on the broader security functions you plan to use, not CASB alone. Organizations that only need cloud application controls may get less value from the platform than those looking to consolidate multiple SSE capabilities.
Final verdict: Cisco Secure Access makes the most sense when CASB is part of a larger security modernization effort. Its value comes from bringing cloud application security into the same environment as broader access controls, especially for organizations already operating within the Cisco ecosystem.
How I evaluated the best CASB solutions for 2026
Each CASB was scored across six weighted categories based primarily on current product documentation and licensing information. Customer reviews from G2 and other third-party platforms provided additional context around areas such as usability, deployment, and ongoing management.
These ratings are my editorial assessment of each product’s capabilities, not the result of hands-on testing. The scoring is designed to make the differences between the platforms easier to compare, not to measure real-world performance.
Evaluation criteria
Cloud visibility and discovery (20%): This score reflects how well each platform identifies sanctioned and unsanctioned SaaS applications. Shadow IT discovery and application risk assessment were also important. Where available, I examined application-instance awareness and the level of context provided regarding cloud usage.
Data protection (20%): DLP and sensitive-data discovery were the primary considerations. I also looked at how platforms classify and protect data in motion and at rest. Granular controls for preventing unauthorized sharing or exfiltration received additional consideration.
Access and policy controls (20%): This category measures how precisely administrators can control access to SaaS and user activity. Real-time enforcement and session controls were important. I also considered whether policies can incorporate user and device context or work with existing identity and zero-trust technologies.
Threat protection (15%): I looked at how each platform detects and responds to cloud-based threats. Malware protection and behavioral analytics were important considerations. I also considered compromised-account detection and the threat intelligence available to security teams.
Integrations and usability (15%): This score considers how easily the CASB fits into a broader security environment. I looked at connections to identity systems and SSE/SASE platforms, as well as other security technologies. Customer feedback provided additional context around deployment and day-to-day management.
Pricing and transparency (10%): Public pricing and licensing clarity were the main considerations. I also looked at whether organizations need additional products or broader security packages to access important CASB capabilities.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best CASB solution for 2026?
The best CASB depends on your existing security environment and the problems you need to solve. Netskope offers granular SaaS visibility and controls, while Palo Alto Networks connects CASB closely with its broader SASE architecture. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is a natural fit for Microsoft environments.
Skyhigh places greater emphasis on cloud data protection, while Cisco incorporates CASB into a broader SSE platform. Existing security investments can therefore be just as important as individual CASB features when comparing these products.
What is a CASB?
A cloud access security broker (CASB) helps organizations see and control how employees use cloud services. It can uncover shadow IT and assess the risks associated with cloud applications. Organizations can also use CASB policies to control access to SaaS services.
Modern CASBs can also protect sensitive data and detect cloud-based threats. Many of these capabilities are now incorporated into broader SSE and SASE platforms rather than offered only as standalone products.
What is the difference between CASB and SSE?
CASB is specifically concerned with securing cloud application use and the data associated with those services. Security Service Edge (SSE) is broader, bringing multiple cloud-delivered security technologies under one architecture.
CASB is typically one component of SSE, alongside a secure web gateway and zero-trust network access. Depending on the platform, additional security capabilities may also be included. This means organizations evaluating CASB may increasingly encounter it as part of a larger security platform rather than a separate product.
Do I need a CASB if I use Microsoft 365?
Microsoft 365 provides security controls for its own services, but that does not necessarily give an organization visibility into every SaaS application employees use.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps can extend that visibility through cloud discovery and provide additional SaaS protection. Conditional Access App Control can also enforce controls during active cloud sessions. Whether you need those capabilities depends on the SaaS applications your organization uses and the level of control required beyond Microsoft 365.
What should I look for when choosing a CASB?
Start with the problems you want the CASB to solve. Shadow IT may make application discovery more important, while organizations handling sensitive information may place greater weight on DLP. Others may need real-time controls over what employees can do inside SaaS applications.
Then consider deployment and integration. Determine whether the CASB supports the cloud services you rely on and whether its policies can provide the level of control you need. It should also fit with your existing identity and security infrastructure.
Bottom line
The biggest differences between these CASB platforms are not whether they can discover SaaS applications or protect sensitive data. Those capabilities are often standard. What matters more is the depth of control each platform provides and how naturally it fits into your broader security environment.
That makes your existing architecture an important part of the buying decision. A CASB that works with your existing security architecture may be easier to deploy and manage than one that requires additional infrastructure. Organizations with more complex SaaS environments may place greater importance on granular application controls. Those handling sensitive information may prioritize DLP.
Before choosing a platform, identify the cloud risks you are actually trying to reduce. Then evaluate whether the CASB provides sufficient visibility and control to address those risks without introducing more complexity than it removes.
To see how CASB fits into a broader cloud security architecture, learn more about Security Service Edge (SSE) and how it works.