We performed a comparison between Forescout Platform 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 most valuable feature is the blocking of USB devices."
"Forescout is easy to integrate with a lot of end systems."
"The most valuable feature of Forescout Platform is that it has everything that Aruba has at significantly less cost."
"The user interface is quite simple."
"The threat prevention feature provides complete visibility."
"This solution can be used to organize guest portals, integrate switches, and create policies. Some of its standard use cases also include completing key process upgrades and anti-virus of Windows OS."
"Provides a good overview of all devices on a network."
"The standout strength of this solution lies in its unique capability to effectively manage unmanaged switches."
"The most important feature is that this solution is agentless. So, you don't have to install any agents on endpoints."
"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"This is a self-sufficient network monitoring and security product that saves time and employee resources."
"The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"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."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"It's agentless, and it's scalable."
"The solution needs more definitive pricing. The costs are hard to nail down."
"I should be able to integrate my Forescout with any other third party security technology, to build that connected security strategy."
"Logging would be one area for improvement. When we're troubleshooting, there are not a lot of clear things on Google that we can look up for ourselves. When we have an issue with it, we have to call the company to get the vendors involved. The logging of Forescout is horrible compared to other things that we've used."
"I believe that the overall user experience has not always been preferable."
"The ability to block external devices in Mac is lacking and needs to be added."
"More detailed analysis during the authentication process, especially for troubleshooting access issues. We have found that troubleshooting RADIUS controls is quite arduous, as it is today. A trace function could easily resolve this by providing a means by which access issues from a certificate to passwords or accounts could easily be identified and remediated."
"Definitely, having more third-party integration would be an improvement."
"Forescout Platform could improve the costs of integrations."
"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."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"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 might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"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."
Forescout Platform is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 reviews while Portnox CORE is ranked 11th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 14 reviews. Forescout Platform is rated 8.4, while Portnox CORE is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Portnox CORE writes "Simple UI, easy deployment but slow authentication times for devices". Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Ivanti NAC, whereas Portnox CORE is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Portnox Clear and Sophos Network Access Control. See our Forescout Platform 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.
