No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

AT&T VPN 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

AT&T VPN
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
37th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Cisco IOS SSL VPN
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
14th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
SSL VPN (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of AT&T VPN is 0.9%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco IOS SSL VPN is 3.1%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco IOS SSL VPN3.1%
AT&T VPN0.9%
Other96.0%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

BS
Global Knowledge Based Engineering Manager at Tenneco Inc.
Extremely stable and very scalable
The solution was far too expensive, which is why we ended up moving to a new vendor. The solution had slow connections and very bad routers. We continuously had issues with the VPN and proxy configuration. AT&T could simplify its user interface and log on. Typically, where you log on is independent of the solution, as long as you have had authorization. With this solution, you needed to configure a single entry point which wasn't ideal. The solution should have been able to integrate more easily with Microsoft.
VM
student at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Ease and speed of connectivity impress and recommend
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 probably need updates to this product. I do not know what kind of improvements these updates are offering. It is a great product so far.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The stability of the solution is its most valuable feature."
"We primarily use this solution as browser and I like that you don't need a username or password to browse."
"Cisco has been tested and used widely so there are virtually no issues in terms of selecting Cisco."
"The feature I find most valuable, is the management portal."
"The product is very stable."
"Cisco IOS SSL VPN is stable, and once we connect, we don't face any issues and can do our work."
"Cisco IOS SSL VPN is very stable. We never experience issues with it."
"The solution is pretty fast."
"It is very simple to use, and it allows me to get into the university's network from my home, which is very useful for me."
 

Cons

"The solution had slow connections and very bad routers. We continuously had issues with the VPN and proxy configuration."
"I would like Cisco IOS SSL VPN to provide a faster connection."
"In addition to Cisco, we work with other solutions on behalf of our customers, such as Fortinet for FortiGate, but this latter solution can achieve the same results at a lower price."
"Sometimes browsers are not able to support a certain file, so that is something that can improve."
"I have no notes in terms of areas of improvement."
"I think the management of the design of the console or portal needs to improve because when you compare it to other vendors, you find that the graphical interface is old."
"The solution takes some time to log in because of some unavoidable security barriers, but it would be better if that could happen faster."
"The administration should be improved."
"Sometimes the connection drops, and we don't like that. I'm not sure the reason, but sometimes it will take time to connect or it will disconnect fast."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The licensing cost of the solution is on a yearly basis, and it is expensive compared to other solutions in the market."
"FortiGate does not charge the client a licensing fee, although Cisco charges clients a couple of dollars per year for each license."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable"
"The licensing fee is expensive."
"It is an expensive product."
"The platform is expensive."
"The solution is reasonably priced, and we have around 50% to 60% discounts from Cisco."
"With Cisco, there is a free solution or a licensed version of the solution with a set of endpoint services."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
896,942 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Construction Company
16%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
Healthcare Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise26
 

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...
What is your primary use case for Cisco IOS SSL VPN?
Currently, I use Cisco IOS SSL VPN to VPN in, but not with high frequency. We use Cisco IOS SSL VPN as our VPN client to connect to our network. This is for health.
 

Also Known As

AT&T Remote Access VPN
Cisco SSL VPN
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Road Comission for Oakland County, AW North Carolina, Community Based Care of Central Florida
MST Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenVPN, Fortinet, Tailscale and others in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN. Updated: May 2026.
896,942 professionals have used our research since 2012.