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."Forescout Platform is stable, it is great."
"This is clearly the best product for the NAC use cases in this field for Forescout."
"Provides a good overview of all devices on a network."
"Forescout is easy to integrate with a lot of end systems."
"It allows for good detection of all the vendor products we have on-site."
"Obtaining visibility into the network and connected devices is very simple with this tool. It takes me three minutes to do a base deployment when all the parameters are available."
"The user management has been very easy for the most part."
"Forescout Platform has made it possible to block people working near our construction sites who should not have access to our network."
"The minute people have issues on their network, we can see what is happening right away."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"The most important feature is that this solution is agentless. So, you don't have to install any agents on endpoints."
"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."
"The technical support is top-notch."
"The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility."
"I am impressed with the solution's voucher capability and authentication. The tool is integrated with Active Direct storage."
"It's a stable product."
"Although Forescout manages endpoints and network devices, there is no capability for user management."
"This solution is not that easy to scale but this depends on a company's needs."
"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."
"It does not support the TACACS+ protocol."
"When we automate an email to send to a user, sometimes it gets blocked, but that has nothing to do with Forescout. It depends on the mail gateway that we use or integrate with."
"I believe that the overall user experience has not always been preferable."
"Forescout Platform could improve the integration or compatibility with other solutions, such as Chinese-made solutions. They do not have any integration with S33 which is a switch. They do not have good integration with new solutions in the market. They do integrate well with Rocket, Cisco, Juniper, and quite a few more but they could expand the integration."
"It's scalable, but not without a big investment. It doesn't do so well at the branch. At the home office, it does okay and not so well at the branch."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
"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."
"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 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."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"It could be a little cheaper."
"The price could be better."
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.