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

NordLayer vs Portnox comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 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

NordLayer
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
20th
Ranking in ZTNA
21st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (36th), Internet Security (16th), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (29th), ZTNA as a Service (22nd), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (32nd), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (25th)
Portnox
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
6th
Ranking in ZTNA
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Passwordless Authentication (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of NordLayer is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Portnox is 5.2%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Portnox5.2%
NordLayer0.4%
Other94.4%
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

Christophe Derdeyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Partner delaware Singapore at delaware Singapore
A convenient and easy tool with an incredibly high number of dialing points
The solution is convenient and easy. It has an incredibly high number of dialing points for pretty much every single country in the world. It has a few additional security features. It has a function that prevents unsecured access if my connection were to drop for any reason. It’s something I like. It has threat protection features. It can protect my web connection and files against malicious downloads and trackers.
Scott Kerr - PeerSpot reviewer
President at TrackerSoft
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

"The solution is convenient and easy."
"The solution has a valuable reporting feature."
"I am impressed with the solution's voucher capability and authentication. The tool is integrated with Active Direct storage."
"I like the fact that you can take your device anywhere and still have that visibility from anywhere because it's agent-based."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"Portnox ensures system compliance through policy enforcement, including antivirus updates, Windows operating system updates, and system patches, helping network administrators maintain system health and security across the network."
"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."
"One of the features I enjoyed the most about Portnox was the ability to dive in with proper details on an endpoint."
 

Cons

"The tool is not perfectly stable."
"Now, the way security is viewed, maybe including something like AI, to automate some of the things that are required to be done would be great."
"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."
"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."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"The integration between Portnox CORE and Portnox CLEAR can be better. These are two different systems, and there is no unique console for both devices. Portnox CORE is agentless, whereas Portnox CLEAR is not agentless."
"The product should consider more integration with vendors like Huawei. It should also improve visibility. The solution should offer a partner portal that can provide customers training on the in and out of the solution."
"From a resource perspective, the OEM can do better in terms of resource utilization."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"The vendor price is fair."
"The cost of Portnox Clear is reasonable."
"The tool is more expensive than Fortinet."
"Pricing is quite reasonable."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"We pay for port licensing and support on a yearly basis, and it's not cheap."
"Pricing is not cheap. It is based on licenses per port. After licensing is purchased, you only pay for support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
879,310 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
27%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Legal Firm
7%
Energy/Utilities Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Healthcare Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise7
 

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...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hostinger, Shutterstock, USMobile, Soundcloud, Calendly, whatagraph.
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: December 2025.
879,310 professionals have used our research since 2012.