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

Portnox vs UserLock comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (6th), ZTNA (11th), Passwordless Authentication (1st)
UserLock
Average Rating
10.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (21st), Access Management (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Identity and Access Management solutions, they serve different purposes. Portnox is designed for Network Access Control (NAC) and holds a mindshare of 3.9%, up 2.1% compared to last year.
UserLock, on the other hand, focuses on Authentication Systems, holds 1.1% mindshare, down 1.6% since last year.
Network Access Control (NAC)
Authentication Systems
 

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.
Bill H. - PeerSpot reviewer
Affordable, easy to use, and integrates well with Active Directory
The product and service are already great as it is but if I could add one feature, I guess it would be nice to have another factor of authentication (two additional factors) like your phone and a token for example, for when people forget their phone at home. It’s not that I mind not having two factors, but I do get that question from time to time from some of our users who think it would be really useful. From what I’ve heard, they’re working on it and it should be coming in the next version so that’s great news.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Technical support was very helpful when we needed them."
"The simplicity of the product is commendable."
"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."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"The Portnox dashboard is very easy to use, and the UI is simple."
"It's a stable product."
"One of the features I enjoyed the most about Portnox was the ability to dive in with proper details on an endpoint."
"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."
"The most valuable features are two-factor authentication and real-time logon monitoring."
"We mainly implemented UserLock for multi-factor authentication, but the user login insights are also nice."
 

Cons

"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"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."
"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."
"Portnox CORE can improve on support for unmanaged switches (or hubs) and other brands of network devices. These kinds of devices are still in use in organisations, especially SMEs who cannot afford to buy a managed switch."
"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."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"From a resource perspective, the OEM can do better in terms of resource utilization."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"The product and service are already great as it is but if I could add one feature, I guess it would be nice to have another factor of authentication (two additional factors) like your phone and a token for example, for when people forget their phone at home."
"I would like to see UserLock add the ability to automatically create a group policy in Active Directory. That might streamline the setup process."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of Portnox Clear is reasonable."
"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 solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"The pricing is a bit high, possibly due to the cloud features and running instances across regions like the US, Asia, and Europe."
"Pricing is not cheap. It is based on licenses per port. After licensing is purchased, you only pay for support."
"The tool is more expensive than Fortinet."
"We pay for port licensing and support on a yearly basis, and it's not cheap."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"You will be hard-pressed to find better pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
862,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
Government
11%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
University
6%
 

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
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Barclays, US Department of Justice, National Bank of Kuwait, Turkish Aerospace, New York Albany School District, Regtransfers, University of Kent, Camden City School District, Oklahoma City Public Schools, Bank of Cyprus, Detran-PE: Pernambuco State Traffic Department
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: June 2025.
862,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.