We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiNAC 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."The users say that FortiNAC is configurable and easy to use."
"I like FortiNAC's integration with other Fortinet devices. They work together well, but the solution also works with other network devices."
"Fortinet FortiNAC is a stable solution."
"FortiNAC has enhanced our network visibility because FortiNAC monitors MAC addresses and other network devices, like Cisco, Catalyst, or HPE switches."
"The support responds to our queries within two to four hours."
"Provides good performance, is easy to use and configure."
"The device fingerprinting feature allowed for easy creation and enforcement of access policies."
"There are some features that are working well."
"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility."
"I am impressed with the solution's voucher capability and authentication. The tool is integrated with Active Direct storage."
"The minute people have issues on their network, we can see what is happening right away."
"It's a stable product."
"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."
"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."
"The GUI is a little bit strange — different than other Fortinet products."
"The product must make its UI similar to other Fortinet products."
"The training from Fortinet FortiNAC could improve. Fortinet has to plan for better training for its partners. Additionally, device management should have more integration with other devices, such as new and third-party devices."
"There could be better integration with legacy equipment. It integrates perfectly with all Fortinet solutions, but if you look at other third-party integrations—not on the networking part; but more on the security infrastructure part—it's more limited."
"The solution's licensing price should be improved."
"The platform must enable troubleshooting."
"Classifications and visibility need to be improved a lot. They have to start work on being agentless. Agentless means they need to have strong integration with Windows."
"Our users have been asking for simpler documentation and training materials to facilitate the deployment process."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"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."
"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."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"It could be a little cheaper."
Fortinet FortiNAC is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 44 reviews while Portnox CORE is ranked 10th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 14 reviews. Fortinet FortiNAC is rated 7.6, while Portnox CORE is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiNAC writes "I like the solution's native integration with other devices from the same vendor". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Portnox CORE writes "Simple UI, easy deployment but slow authentication times for devices". Fortinet FortiNAC is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and ExtremeControl, whereas Portnox CORE is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Portnox Clear and Sophos Network Access Control. See our Fortinet FortiNAC 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.