We performed a comparison between Ivanti Secure Access and Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's an ideal gateway solution for small and medium businesses, i.e., around 300 devices can be easily handled."
"The solution has good performance."
"The most valuable feature of Pulse Client is integration with Google authenticator for two-factor authentication."
"The scalability of Pulse Client is good."
"It works perfectly for me. It is very user-friendly in terms of the configuration and the setup process."
"What I like best about Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway is that it's a managed VPN, so it's one of the most powerful VPNs I've ever found. It also provides point-to-site VPNs configurable within a few minutes."
"It is a stable solution in our company, and we monitor critical health and performance parameters daily and weekly."
"The point-to-site is pretty good for the B2C stuff. It's fairly straightforward to set up."
"The most valuable feature is the networking. I didn't have a good experience with the networking that Sophos has."
"The ability to connect old protocols like Border Gateway Protocol is valuable."
"It is scalable and depends on your chosen network bandwidth."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway is its performance. It is very fast."
"There must be a more easy-to-use GUI."
"Pulse Client could improve the system tokens for authentication."
"Pulse Client could improve the reports. The reports are not in PDF and we can't check the details in the reports of users who are using the VPNs."
"Documentation and configuration settings can be improved."
"In the next release, Microsoft should add an option to schedule upgrades."
"Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway could improve by providing IPS zero-day threat protection. For example, the IPS zero-day threat protection can monitor the user behavior to protect the infrastructure. The solution can only be used as a VPN, it is lacking features."
"Considering my past interactions with Microsoft's support team, it is difficult to get the right support unless you find the right person to speak with from the customer support team."
"Microsoft could work on having micro VPNs to integrate with mobile devices."
"I would like for them to improve the troubleshooting features. We have some problems with traffic and I can't identify where the problem is coming from. I have to open a ticket with support until it gets resolved. Microsoft doesn't offer enough tools to resolve the issue."
"More configuration options could be included in Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway."
"The product must provide a single sign-on."
Ivanti Secure Access is ranked 28th in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 2 reviews while Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway is ranked 4th in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 18 reviews. Ivanti Secure Access is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Ivanti Secure Access writes "Integrates well, highly reliable, but lacking reporting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway writes "A scalable and reliable solution that enables users to connect to older protocols that other products do not have". Ivanti Secure Access is most compared with Ivanti Connect Secure, NetMotion Mobility, Tailscale and Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, whereas Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Fortinet FortiClient, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and AWS PrivateLink. See our Ivanti Secure Access vs. Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway report.
See our list of best Enterprise Infrastructure VPN vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Infrastructure VPN 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.