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

Citrix Secure Private Access vs Portnox comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 9, 2025

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

Citrix Secure Private Access
Ranking in ZTNA
17th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Portnox
Ranking in ZTNA
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (7th), Passwordless Authentication (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the ZTNA category, the mindshare of Citrix Secure Private Access is 2.1%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Portnox is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
ZTNA
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Zero trust architecture strengthens security with seamless login experiences and reliable global access
The solution requires proper configuration and policy enforcement to avoid excessive access restrictions. Some applications may need additional integration efforts for seamless access, and I may face restrictions if device posture fails compliance checks. The licensing cost could be higher compared to traditional VPN solutions, and advanced features may require premium tiers and add-ons. Initial setup and policy tuning can be complex, especially in large environments.
Scott Kerr - PeerSpot reviewer
It is seamless and integrates well with our Azure setup
We use devices like PLCs and controllers, and when we receive a request to allow one on the network, we bypass typical authentication, associate it with a group account, and push it to a firewalled VLAN. However, problems arise when the same MAC address is requested for a different project. Our current system only finds authenticated MAC addresses, making it difficult to troubleshoot when the same device is used for multiple purposes. Ideally, we should be able to search for any MAC address in the database, regardless of its authentication status, to see all its associated groups and potential conflicts.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is easy and simple, and it has got an easy interface. It is not hard to learn. With just three clicks, you log in, and you're there."
"Virtual desktops and virtual apps are most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Citrix Secure Private Access is its Zero Trust architecture, which enhances security by granting access based on identity and device posture."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"One of the features I enjoyed the most about Portnox was the ability to dive in with proper details on an endpoint."
"The solution has a valuable reporting feature."
"Portnox helped to free up staff time and resources for other IT security priorities and IT work."
"The Vidahost feature is currently in action, and it appears to be providing valuable data insights."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The cloud-based feature is very nice."
"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."
 

Cons

"INGPU for engineering software is an area of improvement."
"The licensing cost could be higher compared to traditional VPN solutions, and advanced features may require premium tiers and add-ons."
"When we go to print, we have to go through secure print. The secure printing kind of takes a while. It is a little latent."
"Allowing for a search of MAC addresses in the interface, whether they are authenticated on the network or not, would be beneficial. Currently, it only finds authenticated MAC addresses, which complicates troubleshooting when the same MAC address is used for different requests."
"However, problems arise when the same MAC address is requested for a different project. Our current system only finds authenticated MAC addresses, making it difficult to troubleshoot when the same device is used for multiple purposes."
"As there are no agents in Portnox Clear, the customers of the product cannot download any agents on their devices, making them unsure if the product offers proper security."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"Their filtering system tends to lag quite a bit, so when I'm doing filtering at times, it doesn't filter the items properly."
"The product should consider more integration with vendors like Huawei. It should also improve visibility. The solution should offer a partner portal that can provide customers training on the in and out of the solution."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"I believe there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of integration."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. They should provide better licensing options."
"Pricing is quite reasonable."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle."
"Pricing is not cheap. It is based on licenses per port. After licensing is purchased, you only pay for support."
"The solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"It is not bad. It is a bit on the high side, but considering the cloud features and how much it costs to run the instance in the cloud, it is not unreasonable. We do have RADIUS servers for the US, Asia, and Europe."
"The licensing module should be reviewed to count the number of devices instead of port numbers of total switches. There is a case for this where not all ports for a switch are used by devices. Unused ports are calculated in the license, then the customer pays for license for those unused ports."
"We pay for port licensing and support on a yearly basis, and it's not cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ZTNA solutions are best for your needs.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Insurance Company
5%
 

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 Portnox CORE?
It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Portnox CORE?
It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle, so I'll probably give it a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with Portnox CORE?
We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE. At the end of the day, Portnox Clear's capabilities are much more...
 

Also Known As

Citrix Secure Workspace Access, Citrix Access Control, Citrix Secure Internet Access
Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

The Messenger
Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Find out what your peers are saying about Citrix Secure Private Access vs. Portnox and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.