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

Portnox vs Safe-T Secure Application Access 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

Portnox
Ranking in ZTNA
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (7th), Passwordless Authentication (2nd)
Safe-T Secure Application A...
Ranking in ZTNA
26th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (42nd), Access Management (28th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the ZTNA category, the mindshare of Portnox is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Safe-T Secure Application Access is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
ZTNA
 

Featured Reviews

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.
it_user790473 - PeerSpot reviewer
The architecture is open to integration and development, making the product very flexible
We have a lot of in-house applications that we must integrate with a secure email system. We are a financial institute, so we must use it to send emails to our customers securely, because these emails contain sensitive customer data. The architecture of the product is very open to development, plug-ins and integration with in-house systems. We have been able integrate this system into our CRM and other operational systems. We didn't find that kind of flexibility in other secure email products. We have also been able to customize the user interface so it is branded and able to "talk" our marketing language. There is also a local Israeli vendor that helps us to improve the product, add the new features.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"It's agentless, and it's scalable."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"I like the fact that you can take your device anywhere and still have that visibility from anywhere because it's agent-based."
"The Portnox dashboard is very easy to use, and the UI is simple."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"The solution has a valuable reporting feature."
"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."
"If you want a very flexible system that you can easily integrate, and develop interfaces for it or plug-ins to other application environments, it's probably the most flexible"
"the security level is very high. After we tested it and checked all the security aspects of the product, we found that it's highly secure."
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
 

Cons

"Now, the way security is viewed, maybe including something like AI, to automate some of the things that are required to be done would be great."
"From a resource perspective, the OEM can do better in terms of resource utilization."
"The licensing is based on a per-port price, even when you are not using all of the ports, and this is something that could be improved."
"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."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"One important thing that we haven't found in this product is the ability to provide a read-only view for documents. Also, the ability for the customer to add annotations to these documents."
"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Pricing is quite reasonable."
"The pricing is a bit high, possibly due to the cloud features and running instances across regions like the US, Asia, and Europe."
"The tool is more expensive than Fortinet."
"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."
"The solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"Pricing is not cheap. It is based on licenses per port. After licensing is purchased, you only pay for support."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ZTNA solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
Safe-T SDA, Safe-T, Safe-T Software-Defined Access
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Government of Israel, eviCore Healthcore, Glen Imaging, Sarin, LBG, Rollomatic, Boegli-Gravures SA, Banque Heritage, Groupe Minoteries, Temenos, ZEK, RLM Finsbury, Harel Insurance, Meitav Dash
Find out what your peers are saying about Portnox vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.