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

Ivanti Secure Access vs Sangfor SSL VPN comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 6, 2024

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 Secure Access
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
21st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sangfor SSL VPN
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
18th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
SSL VPN (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of Ivanti Secure Access is 2.3%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sangfor SSL VPN is 1.9%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Sangfor SSL VPN1.9%
Ivanti Secure Access2.3%
Other95.8%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

BabarShahbaz - PeerSpot reviewer
Saleas Lead at a tech vendor with 5,001-10,000 employees
A cloud solution to access the corporate network with BYOD policy
Ivanti Secure Access and Zscaler provide secure access to corporate networks, their methods and features may differ. Ivanti Secure Access offers granular control over network access, allowing for on-demand VPN connections when accessing corporate resources. This means users may not need to initiate a VPN connection manually but can access resources seamlessly when accessing corporate websites or applications. This granular feature helps enhance security and user experience by providing secure access only when needed.
MW
IT & Statistical Officer at THQ Hospital Choubara
Easy-to-use platform with an efficient user authentication process
There is an area of improvement related to the configuration of specific numbers required for compatibility with banks in our country. The platform initially had limited numbers available for configuration, which posed a challenge as banks operate on different numbers. To address this, we had to request Sangfor Management to add the required numbers, which they later accommodated.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Pulse Client is integration with Google authenticator for two-factor authentication."
"The scalability of Pulse Client is good."
"It also provides an auto-connect feature. When you turn on your laptop and put it on auto-connect, it automatically connects."
"The most valuable feature is our ability to limit access by user, IP address, or MAC address."
"Sangfor SSL VPN has a user-friendly user interface."
"It is a stable solution...The initial setup of the product is very easy."
"Sangfor SSL VPN is a secure and user-friendly solution."
"The platform is easy to use."
"Sangfor SSL VPN provides secure encryption for communication."
 

Cons

"Pulse Client could improve the system tokens for authentication."
"Ivanti Secure Access and Zscaler provide secure access to corporate networks, their methods and features may differ."
"Pulse Client could improve the reports. The reports are not in PDF and we can't check the details in the reports of users who are using the VPNs."
"No solution is perfect, so there is room for improvement."
"In redundancy mode, when the firewall goes off, the VPN should be able to connect to the secondary firewall automatically."
"Sangfor SSL VPN should provide advanced protection against ransomware and better data analysis."
"The solution's integration with other firewall vendors could be improved."
"I think Sangfor can provide a web-based SSL VPN version."
"The technical support team takes around two months to respond to queries. It is very time-consuming."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pulse Client has two types of licenses. One is subsistence-based and the second is perpetual-based. The license cost is good, it is not very costly."
"The pricing is good and the standard license allows for 30 users."
"The first 30 licenses are free, and you have to purchase the rest if required."
"Sangfor SSL VPN is a cheap solution."
"My company has a three-year license for Sangfor SSL VPN."
"The product is inexpensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Performing Arts
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Pulse Client?
Ivanti Secure Access and Zscaler provide secure access to corporate networks, their methods and features may differ. Ivanti Secure Access offers granular control over network access, allowing for o...
What is your primary use case for Pulse Client?
We use the solution to access the corporate network.
What advice do you have for others considering Pulse Client?
The tool is a preferred option for making the tunnel from these cloud VPNs. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
What needs improvement with Sangfor SSL VPN?
The solution's integration with other firewall vendors could be improved. Its interoperability matrices and different configurations with other vendor products also need improvements. Our client ha...
 

Also Known As

Pulse Client
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Investcorp, Central Bancorp, Griffiths & Armour
Find out what your peers are saying about Ivanti Secure Access vs. Sangfor SSL VPN and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.