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

Portnox vs Safe-T Secure Application Access comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 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

Portnox
Ranking in ZTNA
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (6th), Passwordless Authentication (1st)
Safe-T Secure Application A...
Ranking in ZTNA
22nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (44th), Access Management (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the ZTNA category, the mindshare of Portnox is 0.7%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Safe-T Secure Application Access is 0.7%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
ZTNA
 

Featured Reviews

Scott Kerr - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
it_user787671 - PeerSpot reviewer
Needs to be easier to configure and to display logs more simply
We use only it for scanning files for viruses. That's the only feature we use in this product It needs to be easier to configure, it should be something that's working well with other sources. It should be something that allows me to see the logs simply. One to three years. Sometimes it doesn't…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The simplicity of the product is commendable."
"The cloud-based feature of Portnox is excellent."
"It's a stable product."
"Technical support was very helpful when we needed them."
"For the information security team, the security level was improved because it helped to manage and prevent rogue devices from connecting to the corporate network. The reporting was granular, and reports we scheduled for delivery on Portnox were useful during investigations and audits, especially in cases where the IP address changed."
"The Portnox dashboard is very easy to use, and the UI is simple."
"Previous to the deployment we didn't have complete visibility of all the endpoints, all the devices that are connected to the network. But with the deployment of portnox, we could see all the devices and where they're connecting. We can equally segregate and apply different rules, policies to each location that we didn't monitor specifically."
"This is a self-sufficient network monitoring and security product that saves time and employee resources."
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
"If you want a very flexible system that you can easily integrate, and develop interfaces for it or plug-ins to other application environments, it's probably the most flexible"
"the security level is very high. After we tested it and checked all the security aspects of the product, we found that it's highly secure."
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
 

Cons

"The Wi-Fi integration could be done better from their end."
"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."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"As there are no agents in Portnox Clear, the customers of the product cannot download any agents on their devices, making them unsure if the product offers proper security."
"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."
"Allowing for a search of MAC addresses in the interface, whether they are authenticated on the network or not, would be beneficial. Currently, it only finds authenticated MAC addresses, which complicates troubleshooting when the same MAC address is used for different requests."
"It could be a little cheaper."
"One important thing that we haven't found in this product is the ability to provide a read-only view for documents. Also, the ability for the customer to add annotations to these documents."
"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"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."
"It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle."
"Portnox CORE's pricing is adequate and cheaper compared to other complex solutions. Its licensing costs are yearly and include support. Cost is calculated per device."
"The tool is more expensive than Fortinet."
"The solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"The vendor price is fair."
"Pricing is not cheap. It is based on licenses per port. After licensing is purchased, you only pay for support."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ZTNA solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
Safe-T SDA, Safe-T, Safe-T Software-Defined Access
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Government of Israel, eviCore Healthcore, Glen Imaging, Sarin, LBG, Rollomatic, Boegli-Gravures SA, Banque Heritage, Groupe Minoteries, Temenos, ZEK, RLM Finsbury, Harel Insurance, Meitav Dash
Find out what your peers are saying about Portnox vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.