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

Ivanti Connect Secure vs OpenVPN Access Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 15, 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

Ivanti Connect Secure
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
13th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
SSL VPN (3rd)
OpenVPN Access Server
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of Ivanti Connect Secure is 5.2%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenVPN Access Server is 13.3%, down from 14.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenVPN Access Server13.3%
Ivanti Connect Secure5.2%
Other81.5%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

Kaushlendra Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager - IT Infrastructure and Network at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Provides secure and simple remote access but needs improved reporting capabilities
Ivanti Connect Secure is simple and secure, making it valuable for our organization. Ivanti Connect Secure's access control feature provides global protect, which allows country-wise blocking. There are many access controls available, and policies can be created on a host basis and on the MAC address of assets that will connect. Firewall versions and OS versions can be defined, and only devices meeting these criteria can connect to the VPN. These features are effective, along with MFA. Ivanti Connect Secure is a client-based, agent-based solution, so if the agent is installed, users are able to connect to the network. Ivanti Connect Secure utilizes identity-based LDAP authentication. Ivanti Connect Secure is very effective for remote access for remote workers.
Emmanuel Chebukati - PeerSpot reviewer
DevSecOps Engineer at a tech company with 51-200 employees
Secure remote access has protected diverse users while access controls provide precise permissions
The user interface of OpenVPN Access Server is good but can be improved. I would prefer to see it become more intuitive. I use Twingate as an alternative, and in Twingate, you see resources, while in OpenVPN Access Server, those would be IP addresses. You get to see dashboards and access views of who can access a particular resource or subnet. You can see who can access what resources from the user view, but you can also see the reverse, which is which resource can be accessed by what users. That reverse view would be a nice addition to have in a dashboard. Additionally, access logs associated with that resource would be helpful, so it would be beneficial to have different views for the same content. Beyond the positive aspects, I would like to see improvements in OpenVPN Access Server. Twingate offers a different approach to the same problem by moving more towards resource-specific resources and fine-grained zero-trust access, as opposed to entire subnets and entire networks. I would prefer to see views on resources. In the same way that we can define subnets, perhaps we could have views that describe what this particular subnet does and what this particular resource does. Then we can assign those resources and subnets to individual users and groups. It is more about granularizing the resources that can be accessed rather than simply bundling them under subnets or a list of subnets, which is the current approach. Apart from that, I would like to see UI enhancements in OpenVPN Access Server in the future. Making it more modern would be beneficial.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is customer-friendly, it is quite easy for our users to connect, and there is also the flexibility of the features."
"I can safely say this is one of the best solutions I have seen for VPN access. It can achieve what other vendors may not be able to. This product will train you about exactly what an SSL should be. You can leverage it to do whatever you wish, the way you wish to do it. This is the solution if you want a perfectly scalable product for your enterprise that can help your mobile users and integrate with the latest technologies."
"From an end-user perspective, the setup phase is easy."
"The product is easy to use."
"My company decided to use Pulse Connect Secure because it had all the required security features, it was easy to connect to it, and it's a standard solution in the market."
"The solution helps with principal decisions. It also helps with the security and configuration of many technologies."
"What I like the most about Pulse Connect Secure is that it's user-friendly; it's easy to use, you just need to connect, and that's it."
"The most valuable features of the solution are reliability and uptime."
"It can securely do remote product updates, push out product updates; just like on our LAN, it's a virtual private network and we just push across our updates."
"It was very easy to set up users."
"The most valuable features of OpenVPN are its ease of use, client familiarity, end-user familiarity, operating system integration, and price points."
"I like that it's free."
"Once you set it up correctly, it works and continues to work reliably."
"It is open-source and free to use."
"The best thing is that it is open source and free of cost."
"The best thing is that it is open source and free of cost."
 

Cons

"Pulse Connect Secure could improve by having better integration with NAC solutions, such as Cisco ClearPass integration with Pulse Connect Secure. Additionally, they need better integration with Microsoft Azure AD and Azure Authenticator."
"At the moment, Pulse Connect Secure is a pretty good solution, and I don't see any issues with it. Currently, I'm not aware of a new or additional feature that's needed in Pulse Connect Secure, but it would be good if the team could look at how the speed of connection could be increased. Though it's quite seamless and I didn't face any problem with the speed, it would be better to improve the speed and keep going forward, especially as the industry's changing and people would love connections to be a lot faster."
"Pulse Connect Secure could improve the reporting, it is lacking in detail and should take the report automatically."
"We need to know how many live active users there are and we can't. We even updated the server, however, we still can't see the proper level of live connections. Right now, it's showing as 300 users and my customer does not have that many users in his organization."
"It could be more user-friendly and not as complicated as it is right now."
"Pulse Connect Secure could improve by having better integration with NAC solutions, such as Cisco ClearPass integration with Pulse Connect Secure. Additionally, they need better integration with Microsoft Azure AD and Azure Authenticator."
"The most valuable features of Pulse Connect Secure are the user-friendly connection and interconnecting."
"I would like the solution to be more secure and compatible. It also needs to improve integration with other systems."
"The connections could be faster and more stable."
"It would be nice with all these features, if they could send some examples of each one; just small sample scripts to look at and say, "Oh okay, I could expand on this." That would help us a lot."
"Open VPN Access Server could be more user-friendly."
"I want the tool to be faster. We have experienced connectivity issues while using OpenVPN and FortiClient."
"They may have this already, but it would be nice to be able to get more notifications if a site drops unexpectedly."
"The solution should provide a faster connection, and its security could be improved."
"The upgrade path from older versions was more difficult than we wanted to tackle, so we ran an older version of the software for longer than I wanted."
"There could be an easier way to set up the solution. However, if you use the provided information that comes with the solution there should not be a problem."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product price a six to seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is a low price, and ten is a high price."
"The price of Pulse Connect Secure is expensive."
"Pulse Connect Secure is relatively cost-effective."
"The cost of the product is high, but worth it because of the utility and great product support."
"The pricing is quite nominal. We pay on a yearly basis."
"The pricing for Pulse Connect Secure is not low and not high, so it's good. It's a six out of ten for me, price-wise."
"A license is required for you to use Pulse Connect Secure, but I'm not aware of how much it costs."
"I don't need to pay for its license since it is an open-source tool."
"OpenVPN is an open-source solution. If the solution is used for personal use it is free. For non-personal use, the solution can be expensive."
"OpenVPN Access Server was free for students. I don't know if you have to pay for an advanced version."
"Begin with the community version and upgrade to paid one if the need arises."
"OpenVPN Access Server is free and open source."
"The solution is free of cost."
"I would say the product's pricing is a good value. I would recommend to other companies to implement it. I've seen other software, in tandem with the service, to be very expensive."
"One of the valuable features of OpenVPN is that it is free for a single user."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
12%
University
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business36
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pulse Connect Secure?
Ivanti has always been known to be pricey, making it a rather high-cost solution.
What needs improvement with Pulse Connect Secure?
The reporting capabilities of Ivanti Connect Secure are not strong; the format is simple, and obtaining a detailed report is difficult and requires manual work. Regarding points for improvement, th...
What is your primary use case for Pulse Connect Secure?
Ivanti Connect Secure is used for both applications and for the RDP of our server.
How does Fortinet FortiClient compare with Open VPN Access Server?
Fortinet FortiClient is a feature-rich solution that is easy to use and deploy without sacrificing safety and security. It has a very fast connection rate and has a built-in VPN. With this solution...
What do you like most about OpenVPN Access Server?
OpenVPN Access Server is a simple and easy-to-use solution that I can use myself without anybody's help.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenVPN Access Server?
I find it not cost-effective. It is not worth the money from a pricing perspective. However, it is a good investment for security and company information security. It is a good investment overall.
 

Also Known As

Pulse Connect Secure
OpenVPN
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Axcient, Baloise Group, Cygate, Catholic University of America, Datec Inc, Revlon, Santa Monica Networks, 7-Eleven
Verizon, Amazon, Disney, HP, Microsoft, IBM, Samsung
Find out what your peers are saying about Ivanti Connect Secure vs. OpenVPN Access Server and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.