We compared Jamf Connect and Perimeter 81 across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: After comparing Jamf Connect and Perimeter 81, it is evident that both products have straightforward setup processes. Jamf Connect is highly regarded for its device deployment without any manual intervention and its built-in app solution. On the other hand, Perimeter 81 offers a user-friendly interface and connectors that can be easily plugged in. Jamf Connect excels in managing passwords and integrating with various websites, while Perimeter 81 stands out with its single sign-on capability and the ability to connect to multiple networks. However, Jamf Connect experiences occasional bugs and device restart issues, while Perimeter 81 could improve its user interface and connectivity. The pricing for Jamf Connect is considered reasonable but could be lower, whereas Perimeter 81's pricing is deemed affordable.
"It's connection with Azure is the most valuable. It is easy to deploy and connect."
"Jamf Connect is a pretty simple and straightforward tool overall."
"The most valuable feature is the synchronization of passwords with a local password, which works well."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable feature is ease of access. It's convenient to do things like resetting passwords. Previously, users were bound to their domain. We had to bind the user to the domain and log them in through the AD. Now, using Jamf Connect, we don't face any of these challenges. Resetting passwords is hassle-free so we can regularly rotate passwords according to best practices."
"Jamf Connect is an identity provider, and once you log in, you will have all the device's access."
"It's a good and stable tool, so you should use it if you have a need."
"Jamf Connect allows for easy and seamless joining of Mac devices to Azure AD, eliminating the need for third-party involvement or support engineer assistance."
"It helps to quickly get access to the pages I need."
"The setup is really easy...I rate the support team a ten out of ten."
"Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful."
"Perimeter 81 is very pretty."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"SD-WAN is one of the primary solutions offered by Perimeter 81."
"The solution needs to improve its licensing."
"The solution’s technical support is bad and should be improved."
"The solution's UI could be more user-friendly for the setup process."
"The logs are an area with a shortcoming."
"Jamf Connect is beginning to implement Multi-Factor Authentication for offline authentication, but the setup documentation is insufficient."
"The configuration could be faster."
"Overall, there is a lack of consistent experience sometimes with some of their features."
"We've had some issues when users restart their devices because the device asks for credentials afterward. Jamf Connect asks for a username, password, and MFA."
"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."
"One of the more negative experiences using Perimeter 81 is the fact that I am logged off after a pre-determined amount of time which cuts off access to some of my company's resources."
"What would be useful would be a notification/warning that a session is due to timeout after exceeding the default connection limit."
"The solution's speed of upload and download is an area where it lacks"
"One of our challenges is ensuring the security of our cloud-based operations."
"I'd love to learn more about all of the features. Maybe a monthly spotlight of features or having a banner that explains more ways certain features could be used would be helpful."
"There is a very small amount of downtime."
"In the future, maybe P81 can improve the network traffic balancing and redundancy."
Jamf Connect is ranked 8th in ZTNA as a Service with 10 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 5th in ZTNA as a Service with 22 reviews. Jamf Connect is rated 9.4, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Jamf Connect writes "Enhances user convenience by streamlining login processes". 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". Jamf Connect is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, VMware Workspace ONE, Netskope Private Access and Zimperium, 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 Jamf Connect vs. Perimeter 81 report.
See our list of best ZTNA as a Service vendors.
We monitor all ZTNA as a Service 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.
