We compared Appgate SDP and Perimeter 81 across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Appgate SDP's initial setup is complex and time-consuming, whereas Perimeter 81 is known for being easy and user-friendly. Appgate SDP offers flexibility and robustness with strong configuration capabilities, while Perimeter 81 stands out for its single sign-on feature and simple configuration. Some users express concerns about Appgate SDP's cost, whereas Perimeter 81 is considered affordable. Appgate SDP's user interface is lacking, while Perimeter 81 receives praise for its user-friendly interface. In summary, Appgate SDP prioritizes security and access control, while Perimeter 81 emphasizes ease of use and customer support.
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"The solution is stable."
"On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"One of the most important features is stopping lateral movement across our network."
"It is pretty stable."
"The simplicity of the SDP platform is a standout feature; instead of navigating through intricate details, users can seamlessly connect to the company's network or switch to the internet with minimal effort."
"It is a scalable solution...The support answers your questions very fast."
"The interface is really friendly. It's simple to understand."
"The flexibility of the tool is valuable. It is very robust. It has a very robust configuration capability."
"Our operators can work from home without any problems."
"It keeps us all accountable and ensures secure internet connections while we all work remotely."
"SD-WAN is one of the primary solutions offered by Perimeter 81."
"Their split tunneling feature has been very valuable to our company since implementing the Perimeter 81 solution."
"Perimeter 81 provides a very secure and non-disruptive experience."
"Distributing the agent was very simple, allowing us to enforce security posture on our devices (i.e. S1, Disk-encryption, etc.)."
"The setup is really easy...I rate the support team a ten out of ten."
"The benefits are really built into the underlying protocol, however, Perimeter81 makes these available in a user-friendly way."
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"It would be better to connect to an application portal from any device. Documentation and support could be better."
"They could provide a single-box solution to manage tools for 4000 users. Additionally, they could add extra features to enhance remote micro connection."
"The user interface should be improved as it is not very easy to work with the updates."
"One thing that kind of sticks out to me is the ability to do a proper non-split tunnel. VPN tunnel-wise, it is not really a true unsplit tunnel, but I think that's just because of the way it's designed. A split VPN basically allows your system to talk to other systems without being forced down the tunnel. A VPN running in a non-split tunnel mode forces all the traffic down the tunnel to wherever you're VPNing to. It forces the traffic down so that the traffic is subject to the firewall and rules that you have in your corporate environment and such. It helps to prevent remote malicious folks that may be talking directly to that box from piggybacking into the corporate environment through it. They do it partially, but it would be nice to see more of an enterprise-level solution there."
"One limitation is that it's harder to provide access to multiple applications in the company with Appgate, but that's probably because of poor management."
"On the cloud, when you make some changes, it may be difficult."
"There is a very small amount of downtime."
"There are a few areas where the solution could be improved. For instance, we sometimes encounter connectivity issues, which can be problematic. Recently, I experienced a connectivity issue while trying to move to Azure. Connectivity issues can be quite frustrating."
"In the future, maybe P81 can improve the network traffic balancing and redundancy."
"It would be nice to have a notification sound when Perimeter81 disconnects, as I sometimes don't notice when the icon shows that it's disconnected, and I end up wasting time waiting for my browser to load a page that shows an error, usually error 404."
"The platform still lacks relevant dashboards and the ability to customize them based on our needs."
"In order to have to bypass the login using the website, a good feature for Perimeter 81 to have is a login instance in the Perimeter 81 application. I'm using a Mac and we don't have that functionality."
"The overall UI could be improved and updated to bring a simpler feel to the application."
"The solution's speed of upload and download is an area where it lacks"
Appgate SDP is ranked 11th in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) with 6 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 6th in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) with 22 reviews. Appgate SDP is rated 8.8, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Appgate SDP writes "Helps us manage traffic-related issues and streamlines access management for the network ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". Appgate SDP is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange and Waverley Labs Open Source Software Defined Perimeter, whereas Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access and Menlo Security Remote Browser Isolation. See our Appgate SDP vs. Perimeter 81 report.
See our list of best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) vendors, best ZTNA as a Service vendors, and best ZTNA vendors.
We monitor all Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.