We performed a comparison between Forescout Platform and Portnox CORE based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Forescout Platform has made it possible to block people working near our construction sites who should not have access to our network."
"Being able to sort on device types or devices with open ports is helpful when narrowing down assets of possible misconfigured devices that may be vulnerable on the network. We can take action on those devices based off of corporate policy."
"The most valuable features are remote access and administration scripts."
"We think it's simple. We think it's very useful and we really like reports and everything."
"You can quickly filter your view of devices and zero in on the ones you want using a variety of tools, such as what subnet it is on or what it has been classified as."
"Forescout CounterACT has allowed us to better open our access and control wireless access globally from our HQ. This allows us to monitor the network access for every office globally. This has improved overall security, reducing risk and opening up the opportunity to provide greater end user flexibility."
"Forescout Platform's best feature is plug-in integration."
"The scalability is good."
"This is a self-sufficient network monitoring and security product that saves time and employee resources."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"It's a stable product."
"It's agentless, and it's scalable."
"Previous to the deployment we didn't have complete visibility of all the endpoints, all the devices that are connected to the network. But with the deployment of portnox, we could see all the devices and where they're connecting. We can equally segregate and apply different rules, policies to each location that we didn't monitor specifically."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"Technical support was very helpful when we needed them."
"It's scalable, but not without a big investment. It doesn't do so well at the branch. At the home office, it does okay and not so well at the branch."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"Although Forescout manages endpoints and network devices, there is no capability for user management."
"When adding what is in scope to a policy, it would be nice if you could select multiple policies instead of one policy at a time to add what is in the scope for network segmentation. I have found that during the install and configuration of the policies that if you want to modify multiple policies or enable multiple policies that you need to define what is in the scope (IP range or segments) one rule at a time. This caused some slow downs when implementing policies."
"This solution is not that easy to scale but this depends on a company's needs."
"Logging would be one area for improvement. When we're troubleshooting, there are not a lot of clear things on Google that we can look up for ourselves. When we have an issue with it, we have to call the company to get the vendors involved. The logging of Forescout is horrible compared to other things that we've used."
"I should be able to integrate my Forescout with any other third party security technology, to build that connected security strategy."
"The biggest disadvantage is the pricing."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"The product should consider more integration with vendors like Huawei. It should also improve visibility. The solution should offer a partner portal that can provide customers training on the in and out of the solution."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"Portnox CORE can improve on support for unmanaged switches (or hubs) and other brands of network devices. These kinds of devices are still in use in organisations, especially SMEs who cannot afford to buy a managed switch."
"The licensing is based on a per-port price, even when you are not using all of the ports, and this is something that could be improved."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"The price could be better."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
Forescout Platform is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 reviews while Portnox CORE is ranked 11th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 14 reviews. Forescout Platform is rated 8.4, while Portnox CORE is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Portnox CORE writes "Simple UI, easy deployment but slow authentication times for devices". Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Ivanti NAC, whereas Portnox CORE is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Portnox Clear and Sophos Network Access Control. See our Forescout Platform vs. Portnox CORE report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) 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.