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

Aruba Virtual Intranet Access vs Ivanti Connect Secure 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
39th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ivanti Connect Secure
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
14th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
SSL VPN (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of Aruba Virtual Intranet Access is 0.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ivanti Connect Secure is 6.5%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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…
Johan Derycke - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable remote access and tunneling enhance work efficiency, but upgrade processes need improvement
Ivanti needs improvement in its seamless upgrade and migration procedures, particularly with the browser components, which are fragile and sometimes cause issues depending on the Windows version, the browser version, and the different modules being used. On the client side, browser-initiated sessions are complex and require a more robust approach for non-admin users.

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."
"It's a very convenient and user-friendly application."
"The most valuable features of Pulse Connect Secure are multi-factor authentications, and VPNs and SSL VPNs we are using."
"Pulse Connect Secure is a stable solution."
"Ivanti Connect Secure provides the feature to check and ensure that employee devices are compliant before allowing them to access the VPN."
"The most valuable feature is being able to securely connect and use virtual desktops."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The tool's most valuable feature is remote access."
"Ivanti secures access to the corporate network from various devices and locations."
 

Cons

"Configurations can be a bit complex."
"Pulse Connect Secure could improve by having better integration with NAC solutions, such as Cisco ClearPass integration with Pulse Connect Secure. Additionally, they need better integration with Microsoft Azure AD and Azure Authenticator."
"We want to switch to another solution because there are some challenges with the support from Pulse. The quality of documentation is also not good. It is sometimes very hard to find documentation that provides a solution and describes how all this works."
"The solution can be improved by addressing the failure to connect on public 2-step networks."
"The stability could be better. There are sometimes bugs in the system."
"The solution must be more user-friendly."
"User experience and after-sales support could be better. For example, over the last couple of years, when this COVID scenario was going on, there were multiple attacks on these types of solutions. SQL has been attacked numerous times, and there were a lot of vulnerabilities, and our customers had to update and upgrade the devices every two weeks or every month. This was a headache. It could also be more scalable."
"The product's price is an area where improvements are required."
"Setup is complex. A few users had some issues with it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Pulse Connect Secure is relatively cost-effective."
"The price of Pulse Connect Secure is expensive."
"A license is required for you to use Pulse Connect Secure, but I'm not aware of how much it costs."
"The pricing for Pulse Connect Secure is not low and not high, so it's good. It's a six out of ten for me, price-wise."
"The cost of the product is high, but worth it because of the utility and great product support."
"The pricing is quite nominal. We pay on a yearly basis."
"I rate the product price a six to seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is a low price, and ten is a high price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Pulse Connect Secure?
From an end-user perspective, the setup phase is easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pulse Connect Secure?
Ivanti has always been known to be pricey, making it a rather high-cost solution.
What needs improvement with Pulse Connect Secure?
Ivanti needs improvement in its seamless upgrade and migration procedures, particularly with the browser components, which are fragile and sometimes cause issues depending on the Windows version, t...
 

Also Known As

Aruba VIA
Pulse Connect Secure
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

VERISK
Axcient, Baloise Group, Cygate, Catholic University of America, Datec Inc, Revlon, Santa Monica Networks, 7-Eleven
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortinet, OpenVPN, Cisco and others in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN. Updated: June 2025.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.