We compared Appgate SDP and Perimeter 81 across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Appgate SDP's initial setup is complex and time-consuming, whereas Perimeter 81 is known for being easy and user-friendly. Appgate SDP offers flexibility and robustness with strong configuration capabilities, while Perimeter 81 stands out for its single sign-on feature and simple configuration. Some users express concerns about Appgate SDP's cost, whereas Perimeter 81 is considered affordable. Appgate SDP's user interface is lacking, while Perimeter 81 receives praise for its user-friendly interface. In summary, Appgate SDP prioritizes security and access control, while Perimeter 81 emphasizes ease of use and customer support.
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"It is pretty stable."
"One of the most important features is stopping lateral movement across our network."
"The interface is really friendly. It's simple to understand."
"The flexibility of the tool is valuable. It is very robust. It has a very robust configuration capability."
"It is a scalable solution...The support answers your questions very fast."
"It helps to quickly get access to the pages I need."
"It keeps us all accountable and ensures secure internet connections while we all work remotely."
"Perimeter 81 has increased my security and privacy while maintaining solid internet performance."
"SD-WAN is one of the primary solutions offered by Perimeter 81."
"It connects quickly and stays connected. The user interface is pretty neat too. The app has in-house support with user guides that give you step-by-step walkthroughs on navigating the app. In addition, there is a live chat feature that offers prompt assistance on the go."
"The setup is really easy...I rate the support team a ten out of ten."
"Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful."
"The benefits are really built into the underlying protocol, however, Perimeter81 makes these available in a user-friendly way."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"They could provide a single-box solution to manage tools for 4000 users. Additionally, they could add extra features to enhance remote micro connection."
"The user interface should be improved as it is not very easy to work with the updates."
"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."
"It would be better to connect to an application portal from any device. Documentation and support could be better."
"On the cloud, when you make some changes, it may be difficult."
"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 nice to have a notification sound when Perimeter81 disconnects, as I sometimes don't notice when the icon shows that it's disconnected, and I end up wasting time waiting for my browser to load a page that shows an error, usually error 404."
"I don't know if it is technically feasible, however, if the Desktop App could be used as a Web App or a Chrome Extension it would be very nice."
"I would suggest adding more networking and security features that allow more customization within their platform."
"I'd love to learn more about all of the features. Maybe a monthly spotlight of features or having a banner that explains more ways certain features could be used would be helpful."
"In order to have to bypass the login using the website, a good feature for Perimeter 81 to have is a login instance in the Perimeter 81 application. I'm using a Mac and we don't have that functionality."
"The overall UI could be improved and updated to bring a simpler feel to the application."
"I have found that the log-in/out process takes quite some time."
"The solution's speed of upload and download is an area where it lacks"
Appgate SDP is ranked 5th in ZTNA with 6 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 3rd in ZTNA with 22 reviews. Appgate SDP is rated 8.8, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. 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 Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". 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 Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Cloudflare Access. See our Appgate SDP vs. Perimeter 81 report.
See our list of best ZTNA vendors, best Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) vendors, and best ZTNA as a Service vendors.
We monitor all ZTNA 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.