Manager - IT Infrastructure and Network at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Nov 24, 2025
The reporting capabilities of Ivanti Connect Secure are not strong; the format is simple, and obtaining a detailed report is difficult and requires manual work. Regarding points for improvement, the reporting part is an issue. However, Ivanti Connect Secure has been sufficient for our VPN needs, and we have not required any additional product.
Network Security Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Mar 19, 2025
Ivanti needs improvement in its seamless upgrade and migration procedures, particularly with the browser components, which are fragile and sometimes cause issues depending on the Windows version, the browser version, and the different modules being used. On the client side, browser-initiated sessions are complex and require a more robust approach for non-admin users.
From our side, there is an issue when Windows updates. The security mechanisms of Ivanti Connect Secure are very slow to update. We expect them to provide weekly updates for compatibility with Windows. Oftentimes, we face problems where the security compliance does not match, causing issues with VPN connection. We would prefer if the updates were more regular and stable.
Some vulnerability issues have led to a high alert in the US and other countries. We've had to initiate a reset of all systems, including Factory and DC, and refresh the configurations.
The product's price is an area where improvements are required. I have also dealt with some solutions, like Cisco, in the past, which were more expensive than Ivanti Connect Secure. Sometimes, the product is unstable due to workload or other issues. The product's end users have to deal with the stability issues of the tool, making it an area of concern where improvements are required.
User experience and after-sales support could be better. For example, over the last couple of years, when this COVID scenario was going on, there were multiple attacks on these types of solutions. SQL has been attacked numerous times, and there were a lot of vulnerabilities, and our customers had to update and upgrade the devices every two weeks or every month. This was a headache. It could also be more scalable.
Associate Network Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 10
Jan 10, 2023
I've had a customer face some issues with connection logs and live status. They had trouble with how many users were connected. There seems to be some sort of bug related to this that I would like to be fixed. We need to know how many live active users there are and we can't. We even updated the server, however, we still can't see the proper level of live connections. Right now, it's showing as 300 users and my customer does not have that many users in his organization.
An area for improvement in Pulse Connect Secure is the concurrent connections, particularly needing a license if you want to use Pulse Connect Secure with your Microsoft or Windows machine. My organization experiences issues with multiple users or even one user with concurrent or multiple connections. In the next release of Pulse Connect Secure, I want it to become a converged infrastructure where you can get more features in one box. For example, you now see firewall products in the market that provide VPN, IPS, and firewall clearing or flushing features. At the moment, Pulse Connect Secure can only serve as your VPN. As a user, I prefer a readily available virtual environment or a virtualization functionality, though I wonder if that feature's already provided. I also want to see a PRA feature added to Pulse Connect Secure in the future, particularly a password management feature that would be useful whenever third-party users or vendors try to access Pulse Connect Secure.
Manager Network & Telecom Services; IP Network and Security Engineer at OSI
Real User
Nov 10, 2022
Pulse Connect Secure could improve by having better integration with NAC solutions, such as Cisco ClearPass integration with Pulse Connect Secure. Additionally, they need better integration with Microsoft Azure AD and Azure Authenticator.
Senior Research Associate at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Oct 5, 2022
The solution has difficulty functioning when I connect through public WiFi like an airport. Whenever you are prompted to go to a website before accessing the internet, provide your email, or acknowledge that use of the WiFi, the solution doesn't work. The solution can be improved by addressing the failure to connect on public 2-step networks.
Network Security Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Apr 25, 2022
We would like to see them be a bit more swift in the changes in the protocols and the browsers. They are lagging a bit behind. Certainly, for the Pulse Desktop Client, they should really work on the modernization. The stability could be better. There are sometimes bugs in the system.
Infrastructure Project manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Jun 27, 2021
We want to switch to another solution because there are some challenges with the support from Pulse. The quality of documentation is also not good. It is sometimes very hard to find documentation that provides a solution and describes how all this works. I definitely miss a single pane of glass where we can have several clusters deployed across the globe. We should have the capability to manage all clusters centrally. Currently, we have to log in locally on each cluster to see what is going on there. A single pane of glass for monitoring and viewing the overall health of our solutions, services, and licenses is currently missing.
Director of IT Technical Department at Prague Stock Exchange
Real User
Apr 2, 2020
This solution normally works but at times, we have had trouble with connectivity. Disconnections are not regularly happening but they do cause us problems. This type of instability is very serious and we don’t know why the disconnections happen. We have a license for 50 users and there are only 25 of us, yet sometimes it is a problem. It is not easy to create a connection, so this is something that should be improved.
Architect - Cloud Serviced at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
MSP
Top 10
May 27, 2019
Features that we would like to see in future releases include: * Zero test FDP (Fraud Protection and Prevention). * Improving customization like make an IVS for servicing multiple transactions from one customer. It is possible now but could be simplified. * Bandwidth monitoring. It is functional but can be better with graphs, like exactly bandwidth is used per user. * Telemetry or IPFIX support could also be useful for reporting. We can do that ourselves but it would be a good addition to the package. * An STP solution, which is relatively new to the market.
Ivanti Connect Secure provides a seamless, cost-effective SSL VPN solution for remote and mobile users from any web-enabled device to corporate resources— anytime, anywhere.
The reporting capabilities of Ivanti Connect Secure are not strong; the format is simple, and obtaining a detailed report is difficult and requires manual work. Regarding points for improvement, the reporting part is an issue. However, Ivanti Connect Secure has been sufficient for our VPN needs, and we have not required any additional product.
Ivanti needs improvement in its seamless upgrade and migration procedures, particularly with the browser components, which are fragile and sometimes cause issues depending on the Windows version, the browser version, and the different modules being used. On the client side, browser-initiated sessions are complex and require a more robust approach for non-admin users.
From our side, there is an issue when Windows updates. The security mechanisms of Ivanti Connect Secure are very slow to update. We expect them to provide weekly updates for compatibility with Windows. Oftentimes, we face problems where the security compliance does not match, causing issues with VPN connection. We would prefer if the updates were more regular and stable.
Some vulnerability issues have led to a high alert in the US and other countries. We've had to initiate a reset of all systems, including Factory and DC, and refresh the configurations.
The product's price is an area where improvements are required. I have also dealt with some solutions, like Cisco, in the past, which were more expensive than Ivanti Connect Secure. Sometimes, the product is unstable due to workload or other issues. The product's end users have to deal with the stability issues of the tool, making it an area of concern where improvements are required.
Ivanti Connect Secure needs to have faster connections. It also needs to improve the stability.
User experience and after-sales support could be better. For example, over the last couple of years, when this COVID scenario was going on, there were multiple attacks on these types of solutions. SQL has been attacked numerous times, and there were a lot of vulnerabilities, and our customers had to update and upgrade the devices every two weeks or every month. This was a headache. It could also be more scalable.
I would like the solution to be more secure and compatible. It also needs to improve integration with other systems.
The user experience has room for improvement. Sometimes when we have two profiles it is not easy to use.
I've had a customer face some issues with connection logs and live status. They had trouble with how many users were connected. There seems to be some sort of bug related to this that I would like to be fixed. We need to know how many live active users there are and we can't. We even updated the server, however, we still can't see the proper level of live connections. Right now, it's showing as 300 users and my customer does not have that many users in his organization.
An area for improvement in Pulse Connect Secure is the concurrent connections, particularly needing a license if you want to use Pulse Connect Secure with your Microsoft or Windows machine. My organization experiences issues with multiple users or even one user with concurrent or multiple connections. In the next release of Pulse Connect Secure, I want it to become a converged infrastructure where you can get more features in one box. For example, you now see firewall products in the market that provide VPN, IPS, and firewall clearing or flushing features. At the moment, Pulse Connect Secure can only serve as your VPN. As a user, I prefer a readily available virtual environment or a virtualization functionality, though I wonder if that feature's already provided. I also want to see a PRA feature added to Pulse Connect Secure in the future, particularly a password management feature that would be useful whenever third-party users or vendors try to access Pulse Connect Secure.
Pulse Connect Secure could improve by having better integration with NAC solutions, such as Cisco ClearPass integration with Pulse Connect Secure. Additionally, they need better integration with Microsoft Azure AD and Azure Authenticator.
The solution has difficulty functioning when I connect through public WiFi like an airport. Whenever you are prompted to go to a website before accessing the internet, provide your email, or acknowledge that use of the WiFi, the solution doesn't work. The solution can be improved by addressing the failure to connect on public 2-step networks.
Connection-wise, Pulse Connect Secure could be faster, and this is its area for improvement.
Pulse Connect Secure could improve the reporting, it is lacking in detail and should take the report automatically.
I don't have any downsides to report about the product at this time.
We would like to see them be a bit more swift in the changes in the protocols and the browsers. They are lagging a bit behind. Certainly, for the Pulse Desktop Client, they should really work on the modernization. The stability could be better. There are sometimes bugs in the system.
We want to switch to another solution because there are some challenges with the support from Pulse. The quality of documentation is also not good. It is sometimes very hard to find documentation that provides a solution and describes how all this works. I definitely miss a single pane of glass where we can have several clusters deployed across the globe. We should have the capability to manage all clusters centrally. Currently, we have to log in locally on each cluster to see what is going on there. A single pane of glass for monitoring and viewing the overall health of our solutions, services, and licenses is currently missing.
This solution normally works but at times, we have had trouble with connectivity. Disconnections are not regularly happening but they do cause us problems. This type of instability is very serious and we don’t know why the disconnections happen. We have a license for 50 users and there are only 25 of us, yet sometimes it is a problem. It is not easy to create a connection, so this is something that should be improved.
Features that we would like to see in future releases include: * Zero test FDP (Fraud Protection and Prevention). * Improving customization like make an IVS for servicing multiple transactions from one customer. It is possible now but could be simplified. * Bandwidth monitoring. It is functional but can be better with graphs, like exactly bandwidth is used per user. * Telemetry or IPFIX support could also be useful for reporting. We can do that ourselves but it would be a good addition to the package. * An STP solution, which is relatively new to the market.