Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Aruba Virtual Intranet Access vs Cisco IOS SSL VPN comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Aruba Virtual Intranet Access
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
38th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Cisco IOS SSL VPN
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
8th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
SSL VPN (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of Aruba Virtual Intranet Access is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco IOS SSL VPN is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cisco IOS SSL VPN1.4%
Aruba Virtual Intranet Access0.5%
Other98.1%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1934385 - PeerSpot reviewer
Very user friendly but configurations can be a bit complex
We use the solution to access company information via the cloud.  The solution is very user friendly.  Configurations can be a bit complex.  I have been using the solution for two years.  The solution is stable.  Technical support is very helpful so I rate them a seven out of ten.  Neutral…
Rupesh Kolhapurkar - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers easy setup phase but needs to improve connectivity
For our company's remote workforce connectivity, the tool was very useful during the COVID-19 situation. In general, the VPN functionality offered by the product was very useful during the COVID-19 situation. In terms of the product's ability to secure third-party access, the tool works very well. The most valuable feature of the product in terms of network security stems from the fact that the tool provides access to the whole network, and even if users give access to some special applications, it is still really helpful. The clientless access feature is not available for clients. My company installed the product for its clients. If the product offers a clientless access feature, then it is okay and can be very helpful for our company. I recommend the product to those who plan to use it. Cisco IOS SSL VPN is a reliable product. The product is very helpful for a work-from-home setup as the tool can be used to access our company's internal network, which Falls outside the network of our organization. I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is very user friendly."
"The valuable features of Cisco IOS SSL VPN are the ease of use and the speed; it is pretty fast and easy to use, definitely helps with our efficiency as it is one of our primary VPN solutions, and helps with maintaining security."
"I like to work with the CMD command line because it's easy and it doesn't take very long to configure."
"A reliable and stable solution for remote network access."
"I have found that Cisco IOS SSL VPN is stable."
"The product is great because it is easy and simple."
"The best feature of Linksys in my opinion is cost, as they tend to be more cost-effective compared to larger switches or Cisco switches."
"It's a very stable solution and I'd say it works perfectly."
"It is stable."
 

Cons

"Configurations can be a bit complex."
"The configuration is critical and complex."
"The performance could be improved."
"In terms of what needs improvement, it should have better integration. Although, it might have already been taken care of."
"Improvements could be made in terms of connectivity for applications."
"They could provide the cloud-based as-a-service model with monthly rental payments."
"The administration should be improved."
"It can be difficult to find service and at times we cannot connect with the internet easily."
"I would like Cisco IOS SSL VPN to provide a faster connection."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is an expensive product."
"Users have to pay a yearly licensing fee for Cisco IOS SSL VPN."
"The tool is expensive."
"FortiGate does not charge the client a licensing fee, although Cisco charges clients a couple of dollars per year for each license."
"It stands as the priciest solution available in the market."
"The platform is expensive."
"The solution is reasonably priced, and we have around 50% to 60% discounts from Cisco."
"My company makes payments on a quarterly basis to the vendor to cover the licensing costs attached to the product. Cisco IOS SSL VPN is an expensive product. There are no additional costs apart from the licensing costs attached to the product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
871,829 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
23%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise24
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Cisco IOS SSL VPN?
I have not found any areas that could be improved so far. I am not sure how Cisco IOS SSL VPN can continue their improvements for the future, but I think it is a great product. To stay on top, they...
 

Also Known As

Aruba VIA
Cisco SSL VPN
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

VERISK
MST Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortinet, OpenVPN, Cisco and others in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN. Updated: October 2025.
871,829 professionals have used our research since 2012.