We performed a comparison between Armis and Forescout Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IoT Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Ease of deployment There's a great support team that becomes actively engaged whenever we encounter issues. Their technical support is amazing. Good documentation is available. The product is stable. The solution is highly scalable. I recommend using the solution because it gives verified control over the environment. It has a great visibility feature."
"The initial setup is quite simple. It's not too complex or difficult to set up."
"It's one of the tools that has given the federal government visibility into network devices and everything."
"The most valuable feature of the Forescout Platform it's highly customizable and flexible."
"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."
"Forescout Platform provides multiple features. They have a very effective device fingerprinting in their cloud. You do not need to add any devices manually, such as in Mac devices. Other solutions you have to add IoT devices and OT devices manually. This is one of the major areas that Forescout Platform is excelling in."
"The standout strength of this solution lies in its unique capability to effectively manage unmanaged switches."
"The most valuable features of ForeScout is the fact that it can do network access control either with 802.1x or without 802.1x."
"We face difficulties in integrating the product with ticketing tools like ServiceNow."
"Armis doesn't have a back intel feature."
"Regarding pricing, there is room for improvement to enhance competitiveness with other vendors and solutions."
"They need to handle their Tier 1 cases differently. The biggest negative regarding Forescout is their support. Not having the ability to get instantly transferred to a support engineer for Tier 1 cases is pretty ridiculous."
"The fact that Forescout Platform doesn't have a presence in the South African region is a weakness because of which you can't ask for help from them if you have any problems."
"The ability to block external devices in Mac is lacking and needs to be added."
"Although Forescout manages endpoints and network devices, there is no capability for user management."
"Definitely, having more third-party integration would be an improvement."
"For the user, the policy that they have implemented sometimes needs adjustments. Sometimes the features that the customer asks for aren't involved in the main installation, and I need to bolt an add-on in. However, I never know if this policy is the right one when I do this."
"Forescout Platform needs to improve how the device works in preventing rogue servers."
Armis is ranked 3rd in IoT Security with 2 reviews while Forescout Platform is ranked 1st in IoT Security with 69 reviews. Armis is rated 8.6, while Forescout Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Armis writes "Improves device visibility and adapts according to an organization’s security demands". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". Armis is most compared with Nozomi Networks, Axonius, Claroty Platform, Tenable Vulnerability Management and Phosphorus Cybersecurity, whereas Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Tenable Security Center. See our Armis vs. Forescout Platform report.
See our list of best IoT Security vendors.
We monitor all IoT Security 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.
