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

Impulse Point SafeConnect vs Portnox comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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

Impulse Point SafeConnect
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
16th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Portnox
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
ZTNA (8th), Passwordless Authentication (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Impulse Point SafeConnect is 1.8%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Portnox is 7.7%, up from 4.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Portnox7.7%
Impulse Point SafeConnect1.8%
Other90.5%
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

CD
Director of Computer Information Services at a university with 5,001-10,000 employees
Easy to scale, enforces policies well, and has responsive technical support
A lot of campuses use SafeConnect. It gives us good visibility and enforces policies. It helps enforce network security by scanning devices, making sure they have current and valid antivirus solutions with up-to-date antivirus definitions, and steers our end users by enforcing policy groups and steering them to the right access. Technical support is responsive. The stability is pretty good. It is very easy to scale the product.
Maurice Mwaura - PeerSpot reviewer
Product Manager at Applied Principles Limited
Unified access control has improved compliance visibility and simplified passwordless access
There is work to be done when it comes to making the solution more seamless. For example, when a user is denied access, they would need a way to maybe self-resolve themselves, perhaps a way to generate a ticket on their own, something around resolutions. When it comes to users using the product, that is where good products are differentiated from products that are a bit of a challenge. Portnox has much to do in terms of their reporting. The generated reports need improvement. Things that other tools would say are normal are usually not present. For example, there is a page called NAS devices or NAS network that is able to show the switches that have been managed. Currently, there is no way of generating an easy report or an easy way of just generating something to tell the customer what they have been able to achieve so far. This is not done yet and is still very manual. I think there is work to be done there. More integrations around the various products being used would be beneficial. So far I have not encountered any major challenge. Where there was a challenge, I think support came in and helped us resolve. In fact, most of the challenges are not with the product; they are with the customer environment. I think that is just to update their documentation where they have come across a new vendor for easier integrations in the future.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It gives us good visibility and enforces policies, helps enforce network security by scanning devices, making sure they have current and valid antivirus solutions with up-to-date antivirus definitions, and steers our end users by enforcing policy groups and steering them to the right access."
"It is very easy to scale the product."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"Portnox's AI capabilities are excellent in terms of accuracy and reliability, consistently providing correct information or alerts."
"Portnox's pricing is very conservative and offers great value for money."
"The cloud-based feature is very nice. We use Meraki for our switching, and it is simple to point all of our networks and offices to Portnox. It is pretty seamless."
"I'd recommend others to use it; it's easier to use and has this GUI that can give you more visibility to all you are doing on the device, and also it gives you a more analytic view of the people that are trying to connect."
"The simplicity of the product is commendable."
"One of the features I enjoyed the most about Portnox was the ability to dive in with proper details on an endpoint."
"The cloud-based feature is very nice."
 

Cons

"The solution would be much better if it offered self-service onboarding."
"From a resource perspective, the OEM can do better in terms of resource utilization."
"We have seen instances where the older version stops working properly, and we have to update each system individually."
"The price could be better."
"It can't work fully redundant."
"Regarding improvements, maybe in terms of integration, they could look into something the guest captive portal features."
"The licensing is based on a per-port price, even when you are not using all of the ports, and this is something that could be improved."
"Portnox CORE can improve on support for unmanaged switches (or hubs) and other brands of network devices. These kinds of devices are still in use in organisations, especially SMEs who cannot afford to buy a managed switch."
"While Portnox is solid, there is definitely room for improvement, particularly with the user interface."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"For our tier group, for one year, the cost is probably around $10,000 for the license. If you do multi-year, you could get two years, and you could get it for about $8,000 per year. If you do three years, you get it around $7,000 a year."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"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."
"The cost of Portnox Clear is reasonable."
"We pay for port licensing and support on a yearly basis, and it's not cheap."
"The pricing is a bit high, possibly due to the cloud features and running instances across regions like the US, Asia, and Europe."
"It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle."
"The solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"The vendor price is fair."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
912,801 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Portnox Clear?
Overall, our experience with Portnox pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been very positive. One of the key advantages is the cloud-native licensing model, which eliminates the need for signific...
What needs improvement with Portnox Clear?
During my daily use, I noticed that if you have many devices being managed by a particular server, any device being managed by that server takes quite a bit of time to respond. If you log into Port...
What is your primary use case for Portnox Clear?
Portnox was primarily used for network access control, which granted access to enterprise devices based on specific parameters that we set. A specific example of how I used Portnox for network acce...
 

Also Known As

SafeConnect
Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aerohive Solution
Sallie Mae, Roku, Vuori, Legal Zoom, Anaplan, Aecon, H.I.G. Capital, McLaren Construction Group, PFCU, UK Mortgage Lending Limited, CCC Intelligent Solutions
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Cisco, ThreatLocker and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: August 2026.
912,801 professionals have used our research since 2012.