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

Forcepoint ZTNA vs Portnox comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 9, 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

Forcepoint ZTNA
Ranking in ZTNA
20th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Portnox
Ranking in ZTNA
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (7th), Passwordless Authentication (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the ZTNA category, the mindshare of Forcepoint ZTNA is 0.4%, down from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Portnox is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
ZTNA
 

Featured Reviews

AR
You can add multiple features on a single agent, but it's an expensive product, and its marketing approach should be more aggressive
Forcepoint ZTNA isn't well-known in the market. Right now, it's a novice, so an area for improvement in it is making the product known. Forcepoint should create more awareness about Forcepoint ZTNA because a distributor like me still needs to promote it more to customers. Forcepoint has to capitalize on, focus on, or highlight its overall approaches to Forcepoint ZTNA marketing, such as SASE or SSE, to sell the whole bundle rather than as a standalone product. Today, most customers move to the cloud, so the whole SSE or SASE approach makes better sense. Forcepoint needs to look at the whole picture. I suggest being more aggressive in marketing to boost customer awareness of Forcepoint ZTNA.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"What I like about Forcepoint ZTNA is that you could use it as a starting point because you have one agent that allows you to add more features. Other technologies require one agent per solution, so you'll end up with multiple agents."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"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."
"It's agentless, and it's scalable."
"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 a stable product."
"The Portnox dashboard is very easy to use, and the UI is simple."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"The simplicity of the product is commendable."
 

Cons

"Forcepoint ZTNA isn't well-known in the market. Right now, it's a novice, so an area for improvement in it is making the product known. Forcepoint should create more awareness about Forcepoint ZTNA because a distributor like me still needs to promote it more to customers."
"The Wi-Fi integration could be done better from their end."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"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."
"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."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"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."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Ninety percent of the feedback I received from company partners is that Forcepoint ZTNA is an expensive product."
"The cost of Portnox Clear is reasonable."
"The vendor price is fair."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"Pricing is quite reasonable."
"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."
"The pricing is a bit high, possibly due to the cloud features and running instances across regions like the US, Asia, and Europe."
"The solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"The licensing module should be reviewed to count the number of devices instead of port numbers of total switches. There is a case for this where not all ports for a switch are used by devices. Unused ports are calculated in the license, then the customer pays for license for those unused ports."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ZTNA solutions are best for your needs.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Find out what your peers are saying about Twingate, Cloudflare, ThreatLocker and others in ZTNA. Updated: April 2025.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.