Portnox Reviews

We use Portnox for our primary network access control in all our offices to protect against unauthorized devices on our network.

The ease of use stands out as the interface is straightforward compared to other NAC solutions.

I have Portnox integrated with Azure and utilize certificate-based authentication for our wireless and wired networks.

We immediately recognized Portnox's benefits during a proof of concept, which seamlessly transitioned into a purchase. After fine-tuning the system with Portnox engineers and integrating it with Azure, we implemented certificate-based authentication for both our wired and wireless networks, providing a seamless experience for our users.

Moving from a traditional, on-premise Network Access Control solution, fully managed by the IT department, to a cloud-based NAC solution like Portnox offers significant cost savings.

The cloud-based feature of Portnox is excellent. We use Meraki for our switching, making it simple to point all our networks and offices to Portnox. 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.

I have been using Portnox for about two years.

I've spoken with several members of the support team, and they have been excellent and very attentive. They resolved issues quickly and provided clear explanations.

The initial setup was handled by our IT department and Portnox's experts. Once we configured everything, it was not too challenging.

The implementation was done by myself, with assistance from Portnox.

The pricing is a bit high, possibly due to the cloud features and running instances across regions like the US, Asia, and Europe.

I would rate Portnox an eight out of ten.

Operational efficiency has become more complex and time-consuming due to increased security measures. While previously devices could easily connect to the network, now a more rigorous procedure is required to ensure security. This involves a help desk ticket and MAC address bypass to properly document and allow devices, which are often more than just employee laptops, onto the network. Although this process increases complexity and workload, it significantly enhances security.

The maintenance is managed by Portnox.

While cloud security is a valid concern, Portnox prioritizes security as a network security company. Their practices align with industry standards, even with the increased exposure of a cloud-based system. For global companies, the centralized management platform offers significant advantages.

We use it as our primary NAC in all of our offices for protection against unauthorized devices on our network.

We were able to realize its benefits immediately. We did a proof of concept and set everything up. That transitioned into a purchase. We then did a little bit more fine-tuning with some of the engineers at Portnox. We do certificate-based authentication for our wireless and wired in the office. Once we had the Azure integration and were pushing out certificates, we could see its benefits. It was pretty seamless for our users.

In terms of operational efficiency, things are more complicated now. It takes more time to get devices on the network, but we increased security quite a bit. Security comes with more complexity and more work. We have a pretty good procedure for allowing devices on the network. We have a lot of devices coming into our offices that are for clients or from clients, but they are devices that are not just people's laptops. We have a procedure and help desk ticket to go through and use a MAC address bypass to allow those devices on the network and document them properly.

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.

We do not have to do any maintenance. It is all done on their end. They do all that.

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 engineering devices such as PLCs, controllers, and things like that. We may get a request to allow it on the network. We have the MAC address and do a bypass. We associate it with a particular group account. It works. It is fine. We push it to a particular VLAN that is firewalled, which keeps it segregated from the rest of the network. However, sometimes we get another request, but it has the same MAC address. They are using the same device. It might be an internal device that we own. When they are using the same device and there is a conflict like that, it causes a problem. It is hard for us to troubleshoot because when we do a search for a MAC address in the interface, it only finds the MAC address that has been authenticated. If we have added it to an account and it is saved, it does not find that one. It only finds the one that has been authenticated on the network. It would be awesome to be able to see any MAC address, whether or not it is authenticated. That would be an awesome feature for us.

We have been using it for about two years, since 2022.

I have been in touch with a few people, even directly in the support team, and they have always been excellent. They are very attentive. I was seeing weird things, and they were able to explain things to me and help me quickly find a resolution. Their support is great.

Positive

I have never used a different NAC solution. 

The initial deployment was not too bad. It took some time, but once we got it set up, it was good. Portnox made it easy. Their experts worked with our IT department.

It was just me and Portnox for the implementation.

If you were moving from a traditional on-premise NAC that was 100% managed by the IT department, there would be great savings in going to a cloud-based NAC with Portnox.

Portnox has not helped us to free up staff time or resources for other IT security priorities because we were coming from having no NAC to having Portnox. If anything, it has caused more help desk tickets and more work to be done, but by going from a traditional on-premises NAC to cloud-based Portnox, there would probably be savings.

It is not bad. It is a bit on the high side, but considering the cloud features and how much it costs to run the instance in the cloud, it is not unreasonable. We do have RADIUS servers for the US, Asia, and Europe.

During our evaluation of all the different solutions out there, we felt that Portnox was the most straightforward one. It has a simple interface to use.

Security is top of mind for Portnox because they are a network security company. Everything they do is best practice when it comes to security. It being cloud-based opens up a little bit more exposure. For organizations that are global, Portnox provides a centralized solution with one pane of glass for everything. 

Overall, I would rate Portnox an eight out of ten.

We use it for dynamic VLAN assignment and for NAC, so network access control, to manage any external devices or internal devices that connect to our network. It auto-assigns them to the correct groups or VLANs.

The simplicity of the product is commendable. It is very easy to implement on our current network hardware. Compared to other products I have used, it is straightforward to add a device and get it up and running onto the network. 

Additionally, it has a great detection and alert tool that is easy to filter and identify any rogue agents or rogue endpoints in our network. The information provided for each endpoint connected to our network, such as the switch they may be plugged into, is also beneficial.

Their filtering system tends to lag quite a bit, so when I'm doing filtering at times, it doesn't filter the items properly.

It's probably been a year and a half. We were doing a migration for the past year and recently completed the final migration of all sites about two weeks ago.

There is lagging regarding just the filters; however, the product itself is available and its uptime is 100%. We haven't noticed any downtime for over a year.

It is extremely scalable.

I have contacted their technical support a few times. They respond very immediately and provide detailed, amazing support with many knowledge base articles.

Positive

The initial setup was quite easy.

It was me and my team, which consisted of probably two to three people.

I am not privy to the pricing of Portnox. However, we have a lot of flexibility with our licenses, and I was advised that the pricing is pretty great compared to other solutions.

I would advise having templates ready for your switch configurations with Portnox config integrated into them so they're easy to replicate across your network. If you use a cloud-based switch to propagate the configuration, it’s very easy.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using Portnox as our primary RADIUS server, which we utilize for our wired authentication as well as for the wireless authentication. We have locally deployed Portnox RADIUS servers in each of our locations as well as cloud-based RADIUS servers provided by Portnox, which are managed by Portnox. We are using it for some wired and Wi-Fi authentication and for some IoT devices.

Providing daily support is very easy. Even our IT support team can log in and view the various logs easily, and they can troubleshoot with the user for some small issues. This is a good aspect we have been seeing after deploying Portnox. Also, Portnox has helped us save on hidden maintenance costs like patches, upgrades, and after-hours calls.

The Portnox dashboard is very easy to use, and the UI is simple. We have not faced any issues from the time we've deployed this tool. I work for Zoom Video Communications, and we have been using Portnox for almost seven years, and we have never encountered any issues. Furthermore, it's notable how Portnox has improved operational efficiency. Our IT support team can easily manage daily tasks without being network administrators.

The support team is very limited. They don't have much support during Asia Pacific hours; the team sits in during the EMI and US hours. Other than that, I don't recall any other drawbacks or limitations.

I have been using Portnox for more than a year, between one to two years.

I have not faced any issues with stability in the last two years. It's all good, and I would rate it nine out of ten.

There are no issues with scalability. They are open to everything, and I would rate it eight out of ten.

I have contacted the technical support multiple times. I would rate the support seven out of ten.

Neutral

We were using Aruba ClearPass before Portnox. It was complex and required a very skillful engineer to manage. We also wanted to reduce our spend, so these were the main reasons for the switch.

I was not part of the organization at the time of the deployment, but it was reportedly very easy, and the Portnox team was there to help if there was any issue.

If you compare Portnox with all other well-known standard products, it is the cheapest.

I would give a demo of the tool and convince them that it is easy to use and effective for securing apps and user authentication. I would rate Portnox as seven out of ten overall.

We primarily use it for network access control (NAC).

I like the simple UI. And deployment is a breeze, much easier than Cisco. Those are the two biggest selling points for me.

Plus, it's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components.

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 robust. 

So we have noticed there's a bit of sluggish. CORE is a bit sluggish when authenticating devices on the network. So, sometimes you find you have an authentication policy, but it takes time for some devices to get authenticated. So we really don't know why. But, that's why we're really looking to move to Portnox Clear. There, the vendor is managing the infrastructure. And not us or a the client managing the infrastructure.

We have been using this solution for a year.

Stability is a six out of ten.  So it's not stable. The reason is, that we have had engagements with the vendor. They say it's more of a deprecated offering from their side. So that's why they've been adding clients to migrate to Portnox Clear. Portnox CORE is really lacking any engineering resources dedicated to its name.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. It is very scalable. Just depends on the server resources that you have and the license, of course.

The customer service and support are okay. However, we don't have a support license. We've been doing our own support.

The deployment is fairly easy and straightforward. Easy installation. There are not many components, so it is easy to troubleshoot any issue.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. It took a few hours.

I handled it.

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.

In terms of capabilities, Portnox CORE needs to catch up.

I haven't done a demo on Portnox Clear, so I don't know what capabilities are on there. 

Portnox CORE other NAC solutions are a bit behind. 

My recommendation would be to avoid Portnox CORE. I would recommend using Portnox CLEAR. Don't even go to the point of considering it.

With my experience, I'll rate it a six out of ten.

I work at an IT firm where a couple of our end customers either use the product or want to onboard it in their environment. As a process engineer, I have to take care of certain presentations and discuss the deployment process with our company's customers.

Some of our company's customers who use Portnox CORE's on-premises version found it to not be suitable for their usage or use cases. Later on, my company started to push Portnox Clear over Portnox CORE. Portnox Clear is a cloud-based solution, so our company's customers need not worry about deployment and other related areas regarding the product. Based on my own experience, I always encourage people to opt for Portnox Clear so that they don't have to worry about deployment and installation areas.

One of our company's customers has an electricity distribution business with a lot of branches across the country, because of which they need to deal with a lot of connected devices. For our company's customer who deals in the electricity distribution business, I monitor routers and access points across the country, ensuring that no unauthorized sources are connected to them while ensuring the configuration and features of the product are accurate and up to date.

For our company's customers, cost is a key factor since they prefer to choose a solution that is affordable. From a cost perspective, affordability is one of the criteria that Portnox Clear is able to fulfill for our company's customers. The licensing part of the solution is not tied to a contract that a user can't leave or opt out of, unlike some of the other solutions that our company sells, where a customer has to sign a five-year contract, and later, even if you don't like the service, you can't leave the product. Portnox Clear gives our company's customers the flexibility to evaluate Portnox's services at any point in time. If a user does not want to continue with Portnox Clear, then it is fine, and they can move to some other solution. With Portnox Clear, its users are not tied to your contract, which states that they are tied with Portnox for five years, even if you don't like the solution, meaning there can be a lot of customizations in the contract. That flexibility offered by the solution is very important for our company's customers.

The most valuable features of Portnox Clear stem from the fact that it is seamless and easy to work with, as it is not a complicated product. A user does not need to be an expert to work with Portnox Clear. 

The product is also very easy to integrate with other security solutions, like firewall products, or if users have any other networks in their environment. For security, users can easily integrate Portnox Clear with other solutions, and it works just fine. In general, the integration capabilities of Portnox Clear are great. The user experience offered by the product is not bad. For me, the aforementioned points are very important when it comes to Portnox Clear.

A lot of our company's customers who use Portnox Clear feel that since it is an agentless solution, it is not well-equipped enough to cover all the devices in their environment. Sometimes, our company has to explain things to our customers and spend extra time trying to convince them that there are no problems with the solution. I don't know if Portnox can introduce agents for Clear or come up with some other values that would make selling the product easier for our company while ensuring that the customers are more open to receiving Portnox Clear in their environment. 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 aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the solution.

The features that are offered by the product are great. If there is progress in security concerns, then Portnox Clear might have to add new features. The features that the product provides are the standard ones that are in line with the other network assistant tools or solutions in the market.

I have experience with Portnox Clear for a year. I work at an IT firm in Nigeria that resells Portnox Clear to deal with network access control. My organization also serves as a reseller for some other products in the market.

My company has faced some complaints via calls from our customers regarding the stability of Portnox CORE's on-premises version, but for Portnox Clear, we have not faced any such issues.

Portnox Clear is a cloud-based product, making it one of its most important features as such products have the ability to offer scalability to the product's users in seconds. With just a request to Portnox for more licenses and with good support, the product's scalability features can be used. In general, Portnox Clear is a very scalable solution.

I have a colleague in my company who works as a process engineer and contacts Portnox's technical support team for help and to take care of the implementation of the product. I think that the only issue our company faces is when we try to contact Portnox's technical support team to raise a ticket. Raising a ticket and the response time are difficult areas to manage when it comes to Portnox's technical support team. I don't have a clear idea of how Portnox's technical support team functions and what they do.

I have experience with Portnox CORE's on-premises version.

My company also sells products from Forescout, which is a solution for network access control. When it comes to the customers, the majority are concerned with the costs and believe that all solutions meant for network access control have similar features. For my company, it is hard to make the customers understand the value proposition of each solution. The major determinant that forces customers to opt for a product is generally the cost of the solution and that particular point in time. If my company suggests Foreccout to our customers, then they say that it is expensive, after which they ask us to provide them with cheaper products, like Portnox.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

Portnox manages the deployment, so our company doesn't have to do any deployments. Our company only oversees the deployment process carried out by Portnox to make sure that our customers are happy. My company's job is to sell the solution, provide the presentations to customers, and ensure that our end customers like the solution. Our company does not get involved in deployment.

The cost of Portnox Clear is reasonable. Portnox should get customers to reach out to Portnox Clear in the Nigerian market by offering the product at competitive prices. Portnox can also opt for the strategies used by Check Point to see its solution. If somebody wants to buy a product that is a competitor of Check Point, then the products from Check Point are made available at a competitive price, which may make the product look very cheap in terms of price, but I don't know if Portnox opts for such strategies or not. If someone who wants to buy Portnox feels that the price is an issue, then the product should be offered to such customers at a very competitive price, which is better than the ones offered by rivals or competitors.

As far as I know, I don't think that maintenance is required for Portnox Clear, as it is a solution that gets updated from time to time. If there is a maintenance requirement, it may lead to the product having some downtime, but I am not aware or sure if it will happen the way I think.

I recommend people use Portnox Clear as it is a cloud-based product. Apart from the value users get from the solution in the area of network access control, users also get value from its in-built cloud, making it a very scalable tool that is very easy to manage from any location. You just need to log in to the portal and then carry out whatever activity you want to carry out. I want others to buy Portnox Clear, as it is a cloud-based solution, making it a tool that is very easy to implement, support, and deploy.

If I don't consider the issue with the solution around the area of agents, then I can say that it is a good solution, but because it is an agentless product, my company needs to provide a lot of explanation to ensure the conversion of prospects into customers. Portnox Clear is a very solid solution to work with, especially when considering the ease of deployment it offers.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We use the product for network access control. It is mainly for wired environments and WiFi access. 

It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR. 

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The product is stable. 

Portnox CORE is very scalable. One Portnox server can support 10,000 endpoints. 

We get good support from the technical team. They are responsive. 

Positive

The tool's deployment is simple and doesn't bother users. Installation doesn't create any problems, and users can work freely. The installation for 500-1000 endpoints can be completed in three days. It can be done by one resource. However, having a team of three resources for the installation is good. The product's maintenance is also easy and can be done with the help of one resource. 

The tool's ROI is related to security. It provides better network visibility and improved security by controlling access to unauthorized devices. 

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. 

Our Serbian clients are enterprise businesses. We have small business clients from the US. The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

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.