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

Cisco IOS SSL VPN vs Sangfor EasyConnect comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

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)
Sangfor EasyConnect
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
29th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of Cisco IOS SSL VPN is 3.2%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sangfor EasyConnect is 1.6%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco IOS SSL VPN3.2%
Sangfor EasyConnect1.6%
Other95.2%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

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.
SH
Project Manager at Novu
Easy to use and has a straightforward user interface
The solution is very straightforward and easy to connect. Sangfor EasyConnect is quite a secured product. The solution is easy to use and has a straightforward user interface The design of the user interface could be improved. The solution should have an AI feature that provides proactive alerts…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's a stable solution."
"Overall performance and features of the device are great."
"The solution is pretty fast."
"Cisco IOS SSL VPN is stable, and once we connect, we don't face any issues and can do our work."
"A reliable and stable solution for remote network access."
"The most valuable features are that it's reliable, convenient, and easy. It always works if configured well."
"Cisco IOS SSL VPN provides fast connectivity and the option to connect through multiple servers."
"The multicast feature is useful for us."
"The solution is easy to use and has a straightforward user interface."
 

Cons

"Cisco IOS SSL VPN doesn't support the configuration of multiple VPNs."
"Compatibility can sometimes be a challenge. There have been issues with operating systems where newer updates cause problems with backward compatibility."
"I can't say that I would recommend this solution at this time because the support for the Token software is expiring soon and Cisco IOS SSL VPN would have to be upgraded to another solution similar to Token."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Firewall rule configuration not as intuitive as Checkpoint. ASDM needs work"
"Only its mobile-based application is available right now."
"The solution needs to integrate password-less technology so that you don't have to remember passwords each time that you log in, which is otherwise tedious. We should be able to log in as long as our system is connected to the internet."
"When many people are using the internet at home, which is usually right after dinner, this type of service is a little bit hard to use. The internet becomes quite slow, and sometimes, I have to stop using this application. I am not sure if this issue is because of the application or my internet provider."
"The design of the user interface could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is an expensive product."
"I would say it is a bit expensive, but I think it is worth the price."
"The platform is expensive."
"Cisco IOS SSL VPN is more expensive than the Aruba VPN, but it is worth the money."
"It stands as the priciest solution available in the market."
"Users have to pay a yearly licensing fee for Cisco IOS SSL VPN."
"With Cisco, there is a free solution or a licensed version of the solution with a set of endpoint services."
"The licensing fee is expensive."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
915,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
19%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cisco SSL VPN
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

MST Systems
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), The Royal Malaysian Customs Department, ShunSin Technology Holdings Limited, Carsem, Sunway University
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenVPN, Tailscale, Fortinet and others in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN. Updated: September 2026.
915,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.