We performed a comparison between Appgate SDP and Portnox CORE based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks, Cisco and others in ZTNA as a Service."It is a scalable solution...The support answers your questions very fast."
"The flexibility of the tool is valuable. It is very robust. It has a very robust configuration capability."
"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."
"One of the most important features is stopping lateral movement across our network."
"It is pretty stable."
"The interface is really friendly. It's simple to understand."
"The minute people have issues on their network, we can see what is happening right away."
"It's agentless, and it's scalable."
"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"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."
"This is a self-sufficient network monitoring and security product that saves time and employee resources."
"The most important feature is that this solution is agentless. So, you don't have to install any agents on endpoints."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"For the information security team, the security level was improved because it helped to manage and prevent rogue devices from connecting to the corporate network. The reporting was granular, and reports we scheduled for delivery on Portnox were useful during investigations and audits, especially in cases where the IP address changed."
"On the cloud, when you make some changes, it may be difficult."
"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."
"It would be better to connect to an application portal from any device. Documentation and support could be better."
"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."
"They could provide a single-box solution to manage tools for 4000 users. Additionally, they could add extra features to enhance remote micro connection."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
"The price could be better."
"It could be a little cheaper."
"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."
"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 integration between Portnox CORE and Portnox CLEAR can be better. These are two different systems, and there is no unique console for both devices. Portnox CORE is agentless, whereas Portnox CLEAR is not agentless."
"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 would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
Appgate SDP is ranked 11th in ZTNA as a Service with 6 reviews while Portnox CORE is ranked 10th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 14 reviews. Appgate SDP is rated 8.8, while Portnox CORE is rated 8.2. 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 Portnox CORE writes "Simple UI, easy deployment but slow authentication times for devices". Appgate SDP is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access, Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Waverley Labs Open Source Software Defined Perimeter and Netskope Private Access, whereas Portnox CORE is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform and Portnox Clear.
See our list of best ZTNA as a Service vendors.
We monitor all ZTNA as a Service 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.