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

Impulse Point SafeConnect vs Portnox comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 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

Impulse Point SafeConnect
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
17th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Portnox
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
ZTNA (12th), Passwordless Authentication (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Impulse Point SafeConnect is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Portnox is 4.6%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Portnox4.6%
Impulse Point SafeConnect0.5%
Other94.9%
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

CD
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.
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 very easy to scale the product."
"It's agentless, and it's scalable."
"The solution has a valuable reporting feature."
"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."
"The Portnox dashboard is very easy to use, and the UI is simple."
"The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility."
"I like the fact that you can take your device anywhere and still have that visibility from anywhere because it's agent-based."
"The cloud-based feature of Portnox is excellent."
"The simplicity of the product is commendable."
 

Cons

"The solution would be much better if it offered self-service onboarding."
"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."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
"In terms of operational efficiency, things are more complicated now. It takes more time to get devices on the network, but we increased security quite a bit."
"The support team is very limited. They don't have much support during Asia Pacific hours; the team sits in during the EMI and US hours."
"From a resource perspective, the OEM can do better in terms of resource utilization."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"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."
"The Wi-Fi integration could be done better from their end. If there is an improvement, it should be around having more functions on the integration with the Wi-Fi controller I used, which was a UniFi controller, also on-prem."
 

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 vendor price is fair."
"The cost of Portnox Clear is reasonable."
"It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"The tool is more expensive than Fortinet."
"The solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"Pricing is not cheap. It is based on licenses per port. After licensing is purchased, you only pay for support."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise6
 

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

SafeConnect
Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aerohive Solution
Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: August 2025.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.