We performed a comparison between ExtremeControl and Portnox CORE based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."The solution is easy to use."
"There is information on migrating most of the cloud system's features."
"The company also uses Cisco ISE in other places. I have been told that ExtremeControl is easier to use than ISE. The other reason we prefer ExtremeControl is stability. That's why they chose it for this big hospital in Oslo."
"I can know which end users are using which features."
"I am impressed with the solution's voucher capability and authentication. The tool is integrated with Active Direct storage."
"Technical support was very helpful when we needed them."
"It's a stable product."
"It's agentless, and it's scalable."
"The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility."
"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."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"The technical support is top-notch."
"The installation is easy, it can take between five minutes to four hours depending on the complexity of the environment. The speed of the installation could improve for more complex environments."
"There isn't enough development for the on-premises controller."
"I'd like to have access to more information on the traffic passing through."
"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."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"Now, the way security is viewed, maybe including something like AI, to automate some of the things that are required to be done would be great."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"The price could be better."
"It could be a little cheaper."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
ExtremeControl is ranked 11th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 4 reviews while Portnox CORE is ranked 12th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 14 reviews. ExtremeControl is rated 8.2, while Portnox CORE is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ExtremeControl writes "It costs less than comparable solutions, and it's highly stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Portnox CORE writes "Simple UI, easy deployment but slow authentication times for devices". ExtremeControl is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout Platform, 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 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.
