We performed a comparison between Intercept X Endpoint and Perimeter 81 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ZTNA solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is quite scalable. You can always add more users. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is less hash-based than competitors."
"The solution is easy to install."
"We have found the pricing to be reasonable."
"Intercept X's smart prevention it's very good as so are its machine learning capabilities for troubleshooting channels and files."
"A valuable feature offered by Sophos is called Naked Security, and it entails the control managed by the firewall on the site regarding the desktop client interfacing with our cloud client."
"It is not just a simple virus scanning product. It handles more advanced needs."
"We most value the price and interface quality with Sophos Intercept X. We focus on solution quality."
"Perimeter 81 provides a very secure and non-disruptive experience."
"The setup is really easy...I rate the support team a ten out of ten."
"Distributing the agent was very simple, allowing us to enforce security posture on our devices (i.e. S1, Disk-encryption, etc.)."
"The benefits are really built into the underlying protocol, however, Perimeter81 makes these available in a user-friendly way."
"Perimeter 81 has increased my security and privacy while maintaining solid internet performance."
"The ease of use not only translates to quick adoption rates - it also ensures that our employees remain compliant with our cybersecurity protocols, enhancing the overall security posture of our organization."
"It connects quickly and stays connected. The user interface is pretty neat too. The app has in-house support with user guides that give you step-by-step walkthroughs on navigating the app. In addition, there is a live chat feature that offers prompt assistance on the go."
"Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful."
"Features that should be improved in the upgrade involve the excessive consumption of the the solution's processor, RAM and resources."
"Intercept X could enhance its support services, particularly in terms of response time and resource allocation."
"Installing Sophos Intercept X was not as straightforward, as we had to ask support and had to work with an integrator, though the process didn't take much time, e.g. it was completed within one hour."
"It's a bit heavy on the computers. So once you install it, the computer slows down. It is a resource-intensive solution."
"The majority of our systems are MacBooks and their solution release cycle is slow to endorsing or support the MacBook's latest OS or hardware platform. For example, when Sophos macOS Big Sur version 11 was released, it took them a while to support this version of OS. A similar situation occurred when the MacBook M1 hardware CPU was released. They have not fully supported the native M1 CPU to this day. They need to speed up the solutions release cycle."
"I recommend that Intercept X Endpoint should include a patch assessment feature. Various vendors offer virtual patching solutions, which could be a game-changer, especially for the financial sector where frequent service restarts are challenging. These solutions allow patching servers without the need for restarts. Incorporating these features into Intercept X Endpoint would enhance its effectiveness in securing endpoints and servers."
"It has a performance hit on a local laptop. There's an agent installed and we are bothered a lot by it because it seems to be using a lot of computer resources."
"I am not very satisfied with the product's reporting overall, and it needs improvement in this area."
"There are a few areas where the solution could be improved. For instance, we sometimes encounter connectivity issues, which can be problematic. Recently, I experienced a connectivity issue while trying to move to Azure. Connectivity issues can be quite frustrating."
"In the future, maybe P81 can improve the network traffic balancing and redundancy."
"Perimeter 81 could enhance its reporting and analytics capabilities to provide more detailed insights into network activity."
"I don't know if it is technically feasible, however, if the Desktop App could be used as a Web App or a Chrome Extension it would be very nice."
"I have found that the log-in/out process takes quite some time."
"Offering in-app explanations detailing what each feature does, its benefits and potential use cases can help users better understand and utilize the tool to its full potential."
"Currently, I am not able to define a different country or location, which can result in negative experiences as the tool is being recognized by websites and this can make it difficult to access them or force me to disable the program temporarily."
"The solution's speed of upload and download is an area where it lacks"
Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 8th in ZTNA with 101 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 3rd in ZTNA with 22 reviews. Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Fortinet FortiClient, whereas Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access and Tailscale. See our Intercept X Endpoint vs. Perimeter 81 report.
See our list of best ZTNA vendors.
We monitor all ZTNA reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.