Portnox Reviews

I use it to link and analyze data.

The Vidahost feature is currently in action, and it appears to be providing valuable data insights.

It could be a little cheaper. 

I have been working with Portnox CORE for the past two years. 

I would rate the scalability 10 out of 10. 

The technical support can be improved.

Positive

It is deployed on cloud. It took fifty people to deploy the solution and the time frame was almost one month.

The solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10.

The solution is good and I would rate it nine out of ten.

Private Cloud

Microsoft Azure

It is good for network access control. 

It can determine security access and the device layer to ensure authentication, validation and verification. The device tries to connect based on certain conditions and rules before communication occurs.

The NAS view that gives visual representation of the state of affairs of the appliances and ports 

We have been using this solution for about three years, and it is deployed both on cloud and on-premises.

It is very stable.

It is scalable. We have one client who works with Portnox CORE.

The technical support is top-notch and great.

Positive

It was very easy to set up and took just a couple of minutes to deploy.

We are the vendor who implemented.

We wouldn't mind a price change because of our region's unpredictable nature of exchange rates. For example, a product that's $1 would frequently change in our local currency, as our local currency keeps rising to factors of differential of 10 every few days. Therefore, the price could be better.

The licensing is based on the band. So depending on the quantity bands, it can be low or high, but on average, it's less than $10 or $20 per unit.

FortiNAC.

I would recommend this solution to others.

On-premises

Microsoft Azure

Our aim is to ensure compliance, so we use this solution for network access control, where we define the threshold for endpoint compliance. This extends to the Wireless LAN, which ensures that whatever compliance structure has been defined is maintained. We have many users working remotely, so we use Portnox to provide a high level of assurance. I'm an information security officer and we are customers of Portnox. 

Our company is big on BYOD policies where we allow users to bring their own system back onto the network. Portnox enables us to ensure that all the systems on our network are actually managed systems. It provides us with a high level of assurance. 

I think the reporting feature is valuable because it provides a good level of insight. Even before clicking on the mouse, we can see what the contents are with the endpoint. CLEAR is one of the best of its kind on the market with respect to compatibility. It works perfectly well with most network devices and endpoints. The security controls are easy to configure, and I like the new interface for CLEAR which is cool. Portnox has been around for a while and I think they've learned a lot that has enabled significant improvement.

Although I like the reporting, we're getting a degree of false positives which is possibly connected to the implementation. We have a local partner and we depend on their skills and knowledge and those of our in-house staff to be able to support the tool. From a resource perspective, I think the OEM can do better in terms of resource utilization. We have a large environment that extends to remote workers, and we've had instances where we've had to reboot services. 

Portnox has done a lot around the cloud, and I'm hoping that the next level of improvement will be to provide the capability for network access control for mobile devices, or device management as the case may be.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, we have over 1,000 users and a couple of people who help out with maintenance and support as part of their work. We'll be expanding use in the future. 

The support could be improved with better local services. Even though we have access to the Portnox support portal, it's the local partner that we have to work with. It's been okay but there is room for improvement, perhaps the company could make contact with their end users instead of depending on the local partner; we would appreciate that.

The only other solution we have used is Portnox CORE, the on-premise version, which was the first network access control tool that we adopted. We still maintain some licenses with CORE, but we've now procured additional licenses for CLEAR because of the increased need for remote work.

The initial setup was not as straightforward as we'd have liked but with the right skills and support, we were able to get it sorted. Unfortunately, the support we had could have been better but we are now enjoying the tool. We did some prep beforehand and the deployment was carried out over a weekend. 

We pay an annual license fee. In addition, we pay for professional services and local support.

We looked at Check Point initially for remote VPN connectivity, and also for firewalls and then for network access control, but I think we went with Portnox because of our previous experience with them. 

I think while Portnox provides wonderful technology, the support and maintenance agreements are problematic. In particular, when they're dealing with a local partner. Partners really need to be skilled and knowledgeable.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Hybrid Cloud

We use it more on our endpoint solutions, and endpoint devices, to secure our endpoint devices, including the computers, CCTV cameras, et cetera. We use it just to add a level of security to our endpoints.

One of the things that I like about Portnox is the fact that in Portnox you are able to manage your network devices, like your switches or routers, using that instead of logging into the console of, say, a switch or a router. You can see the GUI of development from Portnox. It shows a lot of whatever activities you want to do just when you enable your ports. You can work offline as well.

The initial setup is simple. 

It's a stable product.

The scalability is good.

It's good for security. I once saw a machine accessing us that wasn't on our domain, and I immediately just dispatched the necessary policy.

Portnox has actually moved to the cloud. We do not utilize the cloud environment much where I work, however, moving there is the plan. We are trying to work on that. It may end up being faster. One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond. It doesn't respond immediately. The response time for the application is slow. While it works very well, it would be ideal if it responded more readily.

We've been using the solution for one year. 

It's a stable solution. We have been using it for a year now and I've never had any issue with it. We just got it licensed and started using it.

The solution is scalable. 

We have seven people using the solution. 

I have not reached out to support lately. We have a support vendor that we contact to support it. I have contacted the technical support vendor that supports us on Portnox. We are satisfied with them.

I have used Cisco ISE before I came to this company. It is complex compared to Portnox. Portnox is easy to use.

The initial setup is easy. I've actually used other solutions, however, I found Portnox to be easier. 

That said, I was not on the team that managed the initial deployment.

It is inexpensive compared to what I have used before. 

We are a customer.

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend others to use it. It's easier to use and has this GUI that can give you more visibility to all you are doing on the device, and also it gives you a more analytic view of the people that are trying to connect. You see the Mac address of the device and everything. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

On-premises

We did a proof of concept for some customers, and it was really easy to install. It was done during production. They were satisfied because it is agentless, and they didn't have to bother or interrupt other users.

The most important feature is that this solution is agentless. So, you don't have to install any agents on endpoints. 

Its installation is relatively easy and straightforward. It can be done without disrupting the end-users. 

The end-users love the visibility. They get insights into the devices or endpoint devices that are on their work.

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.

Its license policy can be a bit improved. There is no perpetual license.

We have been working with Portnox CORE for two and a half years.

It is stable.

It is very scalable. One virtual machine or virtual server can cover about 10,000 endpoints, which is enough for Serbia.

We did interact with them. It was direct support. They were very good. They were very fast, dependable, and available. We got a very fast response.

It is simple.

The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license.

I didn't compare it recently, but I know that we were comparing it about two years ago with other solutions, such as Forescout. This was the only solution that had on-premise and cloud versions. Portnox is agentless, but I don't know if other solutions are also agentless. I know that Cisco is not agentless, and that's an advantage that Portnox has over Cisco.

Portnox also has an integration with Palo Alto Networks WildFire. When there is a raised level of activity of malware on Palo Alto Networks WildFire, it triggers something on Portnox. Its integration with other solutions was also a strong point.

We are very satisfied with this solution. We like it because it is agentless. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

On-premises

I work with a distributor. We Portnox, and NAC solutions.

The most valuable features of this solution are the agent features. 

I like the fact that you can take your device anywhere and still have that visibility from anywhere because it's agent-based.

I believe there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of integration. For example, integration with specific devices such as Huawei and CORE. The integration with third-party vendors could improve.

The scalability could be improved.

I was introduced to Portnox Clear in 2020, two years ago.

I believe that it is stable. That would be based on the customer's experience. We provide solutions to our customers, we are not using them. Stability is also dependent on the configuration, and how it is configured.

In terms of scalability, there is room for improvement.

Scalability issues have emerged with other vendors, as well as with multiple branches.

Technical support is great. I don't have any issues with the technical support of Portnox Clear.

I would rate the technical support a five out of five.

We also work with Portnox CORE.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. I would rate the installation a four or five out of five.

Compared with other solutions, the pricing is a major pro.

I would rate their pricing a five out of five.

Pricing is quite reasonable.

If you want scalability and have many different vendors in your environment, you must first ensure that they are compatible with those devices. However, if you're looking for pricing, they're quite reasonable when compared to other vendors. In addition, installation is less complicated when compared to other vendors.

I would rate Portnox Clear a seven out of ten.

We just do some basic testing on how the product is working.

We are system integrators, and due to that, we are testing products to see if it makes sense to offer them to other customers.

For a company, the major point is visibility and also the control over who is accessing the network. With this product, you have visibility and also you have control if you want somebody in your network (or not).

The visibility of the product is excellent. 

Overall, it was pretty good in terms of usage.

The initial setup was very easy.

The pricing is reasonable.

I have reason to believe you could scale the product if you needed to.

Technical support was very helpful when we needed them.

It would be ideal if the configuration aspect of the product was easier. It's possible that the documentation could be better and could help with simplifying configuration steps.

The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it.

We've only used the solution for two to three weeks. It's a product that is still relatively new to us. I tested about six or seven months ago now.

The solution is pretty stable. Not very stable, and yet stable enough. I had some issues with it, however, then I had to restart it. After that, it was fine.

I haven't really tested the scalability due to the fact that the test was not extended to find out how scalable it is. That said, it's my understanding that it is very scalable. For our purposes and how we will use it, it's fine. 

The product seems to be best suited for small to medium-sized organizations.

Technical support was very good. They solved basically all my problems. I was quite satisfied with how helpful and responsive they were. 

I did not find the initial setup to be overly complex or difficult. It was very straightforward and rather simple to deploy.

I handled the deployment and implementation process myself. I did not need the help of an integrator or consultant. 

We have just some list prices, just so we can evaluate the product. That said, from what I have seen, the prices are okay. They're not cheap and they're not very expensive. They are okay in terms of what you get. It's reasonable.

We are a partner of Portnox.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to others based on its ease of use and simple implementation process. 

On-premises

We primarily use the solution for network access control, on the wireless and the wired LAN. This includes managing; network access control, profiling of endpoints and, also managing guests and consultants on the network. 

Great visibility on who and what is connected or joined the network at any one time. This also allows for security posture attainment because of the profiling features of Portnox Core that allow for a particular endpoint update baseline to join the network or be quarantine until the baseline is met

Profiling to me is the solution's most valuable aspect. It gives you an extra edge, and you've got visibility on the status of the endpoints that are connected to your network. It becomes very easy for you to quickly update, and be able to see the level of availability that you have in the environment. It becomes very easy for you to manage your goals before they can even cause any issues.

For a network access control solution, Portnox is a very good solution. It offers great integration in heterogeneous environments that have a number of different vendor equipment. It is not limited, say, to one vendor. For a network access control solution, it's a very good solution.

Their dashboards are great and very easy to navigate.

It's so easy to set up, you may not need outside assistance.

I don't have any negative feedback in regard to the product as a whole. It's worked well for us and has very good features.

If the solution stayed as is, I'd be very happy with it.

However, if there was a change to the solution, it would be interesting if the Portnox team could include aspects of End-user behavior analytics (EUBA), with an aspect of AI to the already great profiling. But I already think quite highly of it.

I've been dealing with the solution for two years at this point.

The solution is quite stable. We don't have issues with it crashing or going offline. It's very reliable.

The licensing model is based on the number of users. Wireless is based on the number of access points. If I want to scale up, it's very easy. You just buy a new license and additional licenses for the users that you have. 

From a scalability point of view, it becomes flexible, in that you can actually buy licenses for exactly the number of users you have, or a range of a number of users that you hope to have. Scalability is fine and doesn't cause any issues.

Unfortunately, I've never contacted technical support. It's very easy for any IT person to deploy the solution due to the fact that it's extremely straightforward. Everything is visible. The dashboard is clear. Therefore, I've never actually gotten a chance to talk to technical support as there's never been a need. 

Maybe later, when they have a wider deployment, looking at having a number of sites on one CORE, I'll need their assistance. For now, I've not yet spoken to support. I only hope that their support is good when I do finally need to reach out. 

It's straightforward. They have a variety of ways you can deploy it. You can deploy it even using an OVA if you're deploying in a virtual environment. The best thing about it is it's mostly agentless, which makes everything very easy. It's not tedious for a system admin to deploy. The product is very good in that regard. Other solutions need you to deploy agents all over the network, to endpoints that are connecting. This is sometimes administratively impossible. With Portnox, you don't need to worry about this, which is great. 

It's fairly priced. From the features that are on offer, I would say that it gives you great value for money. Licensing model is great and is scalable 

I'd advise other organizations considering the solution to switch when you can. If you compare it to other solutions, other solutions are kind of tied to vendor-specific equipment. They have APIs to connect to other vendors. For Portnox, it's the usual communication interfaces that are already actually implemented within most hardware and most solutions.

It is very easy to work with the solution if you have an environment that has a number of different products, which is most of the IT Department across the world. Even if you have the same brand in the environment, it's very good. However, it is impossible to have one solution for doing everything. 

It is a very, very nice product. I would recommend it to any customer. Even to deploy, it's quite easy, and the price is very good.

Overall, I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. I have never had any issue switch it.

On-premises