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

Armis vs Forescout Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 3, 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

Armis
Ranking in IoT Security
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Cyber-Physical Systems Protection (1st)
Forescout Platform
Ranking in IoT Security
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (5th), Endpoint Compliance (4th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the IoT Security category, the mindshare of Armis is 13.5%, down from 18.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Forescout Platform is 8.3%, down from 15.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IoT Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Armis13.5%
Forescout Platform8.3%
Other78.2%
IoT Security
 

Featured Reviews

SaketShrivastava - PeerSpot reviewer
Technology and Digitization Lead at JLL
Comprehensive asset visibility and OT operations support enhance risk mitigation
I use Armis for asset discovery and vulnerability assessments of the OT network Armis is easy to use. Very few software solutions have OT capabilities that do not impact OT operations. Its asset visibility is good as well. This comprehensive feature set is crucial for our operations.…
AshishKumar Rai - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Comprehensive visibility has strengthened endpoint control and automated threat response across networks
When it comes to improving Forescout Platform, I have faced some issues recently, particularly with the switch integration part. When integrating a switch, it asks for the vendor type, and often it does not match. For example, one series of HP switches may not be found in that vendor list. This leads to frustration because you have to check again with different HP models, and once you integrate a switch, you cannot edit the vendor list without removing it. Other issues are being worked on, particularly related to switch integration. I believe they will be fixed in the next upgrade or patch fix. There are no major issues, but the configuration changes needed for the switch model are necessary, and I think it would help if during integration, an admin user could check the password or credential used, as they currently cannot see the password after it is entered and saved.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The technology is good."
"The tool is user-friendly and helps to detect vulnerabilities."
"Armis is very easy to implement due to its agentless design and offers a granular level of visibility for all assets in the network."
"I find the most valuable features of Armis to be its focus on IT, OT security, and medical device security."
"The solution’s vulnerability monitoring system is very good."
"It determines which assets and devices are at risk, alerts you if there's a risk, and categorizes all assets, including personal computers, mobile phones, servers, televisions, cars, and video game consoles."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is asset tracking."
"Armis is easy to use."
"The initial setup is quite simple. It's not too complex or difficult to set up."
"Automated policy enforcement is particularly valuable as it significantly reduces the need for manual intervention, thus enhancing efficiency and security."
"You can quickly filter your view of devices and zero in on the ones you want using a variety of tools, such as what subnet it is on or what it has been classified as."
"The valuable feature of the product stems from the fact that it is easy to implement."
"Emergency response, risk assessment information to get a view of the of the vulnerability."
"Forescout CounterACT has allowed us to better open our access and control wireless access globally from our HQ. This allows us to monitor the network access for every office globally. This has improved overall security, reducing risk and opening up the opportunity to provide greater end user flexibility."
"I help customers use the Forescout Platform for compliance enforcement. We can specify what needs to be installed on devices connecting to the network, like antivirus, updates, and security software."
"The 802.1X compliance authentication feature of this solution is very good."
 

Cons

"There isn't anything specific that needs improvement."
"Armis could improve its geographic spread and marketing campaigns across regions."
"Armis doesn't have a back intel feature."
"We face difficulties in integrating the product with ticketing tools like ServiceNow."
"We have faced issues with the tool's stability."
"We face issues during implementation."
"The vulnerability assessment for Windows is not that great. It misses out on a lot of vulnerabilities."
"After implementing Armis, an organization experiences it as an add-on. Without asset visibility or vulnerability prioritization, it becomes a useless product."
"When adding what is in scope to a policy, it would be nice if you could select multiple policies instead of one policy at a time to add what is in the scope for network segmentation. I have found that during the install and configuration of the policies that if you want to modify multiple policies or enable multiple policies that you need to define what is in the scope (IP range or segments) one rule at a time. This caused some slow downs when implementing policies."
"Customer support could be improved by providing direct assistance from Forescout employees or specialists at customer sites to enhance the support experience and effectiveness."
"Forescout Platform needs to improve how the device works in preventing rogue servers."
"It does not support the TACACS+ protocol."
"For the user, the policy that they have implemented sometimes needs adjustments. Sometimes the features that the customer asks for aren't involved in the main installation, and I need to bolt an add-on in. However, I never know if this policy is the right one when I do this."
"The console is a fat client, and a web interface would be preferable."
"I should be able to integrate my Forescout with any other third party security technology, to build that connected security strategy."
"Forescout Platform's technical support is slow to respond and could be more knowledgeable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is cheap."
"Forescout is more expensive than Cisco because Cisco gives high discounts."
"They base the license on the number of devices, which is quite misleading."
"We went with the virtual appliance option. The biggest cost to running these types of appliances would be to either have multiple virtual appliances at every data center or running Remote SPAN hardware to provide you the real-time network visibility."
"The tool's pricing is expensive but reasonable."
"Time savings in finding rogue devices as well as identifying potentially unwanted devices on the network has saved the organization time and money."
"You can have a flexible license depending on your environment."
"The price of Forescout is reasonable when compared to Cisco ISE."
"We might have paid in the ballpark of $20,000 yearly for our licenses. I do not recall there being other fees over and above the standard licensing fee."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IoT Security solutions are best for your needs.
881,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise44
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Armis?
The vulnerability assessment for Windows is not that great. It misses out on a lot of vulnerabilities. Additionally, the filtration process in Armis is not that great.
What is your primary use case for Armis?
I use Armis ( /products/armis-reviews ) for asset discovery and vulnerability assessments of the OT network.
What advice do you have for others considering Armis?
I have not seen any machine learning features or AI capabilities in the product. If AI provided a better understanding of vulnerabilities, it would be great. I rate my experience with Armis as nine...
What advice do you have for others considering Forescout Platform?
Forescout is a very powerful NAC product that does not rely on port level configuration. It can detect and block unauthorized devices very quickly. But it has a lot of capabilities and really would...
What advice do you have for others considering Forescout Platform?
I would rate the Forescout Device and Visibility Control Platform at a six out of ten.
What advice do you have for others considering Forescout Platform?
I recommend doing a compression demo. If people use it, they will buy it. So they have to see the product in place. That's the main recommendation is to do a proof of concept. If they do, they will...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Forescout Platform, CounterACT for Endpoint Compliance, ForeScout CounterACT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung Research America, IDT Corporation, Gett
NHS Sussex, SAP, SEGA, Vistaprint, Miami Children's Hospital, Pioneer Investments, New York Law School, OmnicomGroup, Meritrust
Find out what your peers are saying about Armis vs. Forescout Platform and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.