We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE. 

At the end of the day, Portnox Clear's  capabilities are much more robust. 

So we have noticed there's a bit of sluggish. CORE is a bit sluggish when authenticating devices on the network. So, sometimes you find you have an authentication policy, but it takes time for some devices to get authenticated. So we really don't know why. But, that's why we're really looking to move to Portnox Clear. There, the vendor is managing the infrastructure. And not us or a the client managing the infrastructure.

It could be a little cheaper. 

Portnox has actually moved to the cloud. We do not utilize the cloud environment much where I work, however, moving there is the plan. We are trying to work on that. It may end up being faster. One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond. It doesn't respond immediately. The response time for the application is slow. While it works very well, it would be ideal if it responded more readily.

It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR. 

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.

Its license policy can be a bit improved. There is no perpetual license.

This solution reports a certain number of false positives, but it generally has to do with the configuration. 

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.

Better integration with our firewall, so that we can create policies that would block ports that are in a state of attack, would be a helpful inclusion for the next release of this solution.

In our case, the product does what it's meant to do. I don't see any real need for improvement here, at least not for our needs. The interface is very convenient and provides very good security for exactly what we need the product for. It's a simple solution and we haven't had any problems with it for the past six or seven years. I don't know that we really have any pain points with the product or I'd be aware of them.

There are a certain number of false positives on occasion where we get an alert and really nothing is wrong, but generally, those issues have to do with computer configuration. It isn't really the fault of the product. I don't have anything bad to say about the product. We are very happy with it.

I guess one of the problems with the tool is our own fault. We could use a lot more of its features than we do now. But we have been using the parts of the product that we need for years now. If we had problems with it and it didn't do what we needed it to anymore, we wouldn't continue buying the support for it and we'd look for another solution.

I guess the only thing that might really make a difference is a change in the pricing structure. They charge us by the number of ports that we have on our switches. The more ports we have on the switch, the more we have to pay — even if we're not using all of the ports. From the point of view of licensing, there could be some kind of improvement. I think it would be better if we were paying for actual usage.

If there were additional features to add, I might suggest better options for integration with the firewall. I know that the product has this feature already, but it's something we haven't explored more deeply because it isn't the reason we use the solution. If there were better integration with our firewall, we might be able to do additional things like creating policies that would block ports that are under attack or other things like that which could be beneficial.

Portnox has the integration capability, but as far as I know, it's not something that's really built into the solution. It involves some scripting. I think that if they made that easier to deploy, we would definitely use it.

Areas that Portnox CORE can improve include: 

1. 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.
2. The licensing module. This should be reviewed to count the number of devices instead of port numbers of total switches. There is a case for this where not all ports for a switch are used by devices. Unused ports are calculated in the license, then the customer pays for license for those unused ports.  
   

For now, they just released the new version which has a completely different design interface, and there are some other improvements that were added onto it. So we need to look at it and understand how these features impact the performance and all that before we can make a recommendation.

One thing they can look at is increasing the number of support staff so that there will be more people supporting the solution than they currently have.

The product should consider more integration with vendors like Huawei. It should also improve visibility. The solution should offer a partner portal that can provide customers training on the in and out of the solution. 

I don't have any negative feedback in regard to the product as a whole. It's worked well for us and has very good features.

If the solution stayed as is, I'd be very happy with it.

However, if there was a change to the solution, it would be interesting if the Portnox team could include aspects of End-user behavior analytics (EUBA), with an aspect of AI to the already great profiling. But I already think quite highly of it.

It would be ideal if the configuration aspect of the product was easier. It's possible that the documentation could be better and could help with simplifying configuration steps.

The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it.