Portnox Reviews

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.

We use it more on our endpoint solutions, and endpoint devices, to secure our endpoint devices, including the computers, CCTV cameras, et cetera. We use it just to add a level of security to our endpoints.

One of the things that I like about Portnox is the fact that in Portnox you are able to manage your network devices, like your switches or routers, using that instead of logging into the console of, say, a switch or a router. You can see the GUI of development from Portnox. It shows a lot of whatever activities you want to do just when you enable your ports. You can work offline as well.

The initial setup is simple. 

It's a stable product.

The scalability is good.

It's good for security. I once saw a machine accessing us that wasn't on our domain, and I immediately just dispatched the necessary policy.

Portnox has actually moved to the cloud. We do not utilize the cloud environment much where I work, however, moving there is the plan. We are trying to work on that. It may end up being faster. One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond. It doesn't respond immediately. The response time for the application is slow. While it works very well, it would be ideal if it responded more readily.

We've been using the solution for one year. 

It's a stable solution. We have been using it for a year now and I've never had any issue with it. We just got it licensed and started using it.

The solution is scalable. 

We have seven people using the solution. 

I have not reached out to support lately. We have a support vendor that we contact to support it. I have contacted the technical support vendor that supports us on Portnox. We are satisfied with them.

I have used Cisco ISE before I came to this company. It is complex compared to Portnox. Portnox is easy to use.

The initial setup is easy. I've actually used other solutions, however, I found Portnox to be easier. 

That said, I was not on the team that managed the initial deployment.

It is inexpensive compared to what I have used before. 

We are a customer.

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend others to use it. It's easier to use and has this GUI that can give you more visibility to all you are doing on the device, and also it gives you a more analytic view of the people that are trying to connect. You see the Mac address of the device and everything. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Our aim is to ensure compliance, so we use this solution for network access control, where we define the threshold for endpoint compliance. This extends to the Wireless LAN, which ensures that whatever compliance structure has been defined is maintained. We have many users working remotely, so we use Portnox to provide a high level of assurance. I'm an information security officer and we are customers of Portnox. 

Our company is big on BYOD policies where we allow users to bring their own system back onto the network. Portnox enables us to ensure that all the systems on our network are actually managed systems. It provides us with a high level of assurance. 

I think the reporting feature is valuable because it provides a good level of insight. Even before clicking on the mouse, we can see what the contents are with the endpoint. CLEAR is one of the best of its kind on the market with respect to compatibility. It works perfectly well with most network devices and endpoints. The security controls are easy to configure, and I like the new interface for CLEAR which is cool. Portnox has been around for a while and I think they've learned a lot that has enabled significant improvement.

Although I like the reporting, we're getting a degree of false positives which is possibly connected to the implementation. We have a local partner and we depend on their skills and knowledge and those of our in-house staff to be able to support the tool. From a resource perspective, I think the OEM can do better in terms of resource utilization. We have a large environment that extends to remote workers, and we've had instances where we've had to reboot services. 

Portnox has done a lot around the cloud, and I'm hoping that the next level of improvement will be to provide the capability for network access control for mobile devices, or device management as the case may be.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, we have over 1,000 users and a couple of people who help out with maintenance and support as part of their work. We'll be expanding use in the future. 

The support could be improved with better local services. Even though we have access to the Portnox support portal, it's the local partner that we have to work with. It's been okay but there is room for improvement, perhaps the company could make contact with their end users instead of depending on the local partner; we would appreciate that.

The only other solution we have used is Portnox CORE, the on-premise version, which was the first network access control tool that we adopted. We still maintain some licenses with CORE, but we've now procured additional licenses for CLEAR because of the increased need for remote work.

The initial setup was not as straightforward as we'd have liked but with the right skills and support, we were able to get it sorted. Unfortunately, the support we had could have been better but we are now enjoying the tool. We did some prep beforehand and the deployment was carried out over a weekend. 

We pay an annual license fee. In addition, we pay for professional services and local support.

We looked at Check Point initially for remote VPN connectivity, and also for firewalls and then for network access control, but I think we went with Portnox because of our previous experience with them. 

I think while Portnox provides wonderful technology, the support and maintenance agreements are problematic. In particular, when they're dealing with a local partner. Partners really need to be skilled and knowledgeable.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We did a proof of concept for some customers, and it was really easy to install. It was done during production. They were satisfied because it is agentless, and they didn't have to bother or interrupt other users.

The most important feature is that this solution is agentless. So, you don't have to install any agents on endpoints. 

Its installation is relatively easy and straightforward. It can be done without disrupting the end-users. 

The end-users love the visibility. They get insights into the devices or endpoint devices that are on their work.

The integration between Portnox CORE and Portnox CLEAR can be better. These are two different systems, and there is no unique console for both devices. Portnox CORE is agentless, whereas Portnox CLEAR is not agentless.

Its license policy can be a bit improved. There is no perpetual license.

We have been working with Portnox CORE for two and a half years.

It is stable.

It is very scalable. One virtual machine or virtual server can cover about 10,000 endpoints, which is enough for Serbia.

We did interact with them. It was direct support. They were very good. They were very fast, dependable, and available. We got a very fast response.

It is simple.

The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license.

I didn't compare it recently, but I know that we were comparing it about two years ago with other solutions, such as Forescout. This was the only solution that had on-premise and cloud versions. Portnox is agentless, but I don't know if other solutions are also agentless. I know that Cisco is not agentless, and that's an advantage that Portnox has over Cisco.

Portnox also has an integration with Palo Alto Networks WildFire. When there is a raised level of activity of malware on Palo Alto Networks WildFire, it triggers something on Portnox. Its integration with other solutions was also a strong point.

We are very satisfied with this solution. We like it because it is agentless. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for network access control in an on-premises deployment. It handles our authentication, allowing users to access a network only according to the policy that the organization provides. The network is not open to everyone. Rather, it's only open to those who actually work for the network.

The minute people have issues on their network, we can see what is happening right away. It is graphical, and we can see where the issue is, including the network port. It makes it a lot easier for us to troubleshoot and correct network problems.

The user interface is very convenient.

This solution reports a certain number of false positives, but it generally has to do with the configuration. 

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.

Better integration with our firewall, so that we can create policies that would block ports that are in a state of attack, would be a helpful inclusion for the next release of this solution.

This is a stable solution that we use on a daily basis. It works, and we don't have any problems with it.

Whenever we grew, there were no issues with scalability. It is just a question of adding licenses. Currently, we have approximately eight hundred ports, which means eight hundred devices. As the company grows, our usage will continue to grow.

We have not had to contact technical support for a long time, but when we did, we have had good support from them.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup of this solution is simple and straightforward. I believe that our deployment took one day, although the system will take some time to learn after that. In total, it probably takes a couple of days.

Nothing is required in order to maintain this solution. It works. We get alerts, and we work according to the alerts. There is no dedicated team for this.

We had an integrator to assist us with the deployment. Everything works fine, and we are very pleased with them.

We pay for port licensing and support on a yearly basis, and it's not cheap.

Six years ago, I evaluated other solutions before choosing this one. This was what we decided on at the time, but maybe today there are other solutions on the market that do the same thing, and maybe in a better way. This solution satisfied us at the time, and since then we have been happy with it. 

Forescout was one of the solutions that I evaluated, and it was more complicated. It may be better today, but at the time it was more complex and it took it a lot more time to integrate into the company. It had false positive issues.

This is a simple solution and it does pretty much what it's supposed to do. We haven't had any problems with it for the past six years. This product is always running in the background. We get reports and alerts, and we deal with them accordingly.

This product has helped us tremendously during the years in locating all kind of issues that we had on the network, very quickly, and I recommend it.

Overall, it is a very good product and we are very happy with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

For our use case we can check on syndication issues while using it for NAC (Network Access Control). It helps us to allow users access to the network according to the policy that the organization provides.

The product has helped improve our organization in a number of different ways. The most important of all is that we are aware of situations the minute anyone on the network has issues. We can see what is happening right away. It has a very good graphical interface and we see exactly where the issue is, what ports the issue is occurring at and that makes it a lot easier for us to troubleshoot network issues. That ability helps with uptime and productivity.

The most valuable feature of the product in our case is the network visibility. The product gives us a very good view of what's happening on the network and we can take action proactively. It also provides security. Our network isn't open to everyone in the organization. It's open only to people who have a real need to work on the network. The product helps us control that access.

It also helps that the product is self-sufficient. We don't need to allocate employee resources to the maintenance and monitoring unless something goes wrong. It is all automated. We get alerts and we react according to the alerts we receive without a dedicated team that monitors the solution. We're a team and we work together on other things while the product monitors the system. When we get alerts, that's when we deal with it.

In our case, the product does what it's meant to do. I don't see any real need for improvement here, at least not for our needs. The interface is very convenient and provides very good security for exactly what we need the product for. It's a simple solution and we haven't had any problems with it for the past six or seven years. I don't know that we really have any pain points with the product or I'd be aware of them.

There are a certain number of false positives on occasion where we get an alert and really nothing is wrong, but generally, those issues have to do with computer configuration. It isn't really the fault of the product. I don't have anything bad to say about the product. We are very happy with it.

I guess one of the problems with the tool is our own fault. We could use a lot more of its features than we do now. But we have been using the parts of the product that we need for years now. If we had problems with it and it didn't do what we needed it to anymore, we wouldn't continue buying the support for it and we'd look for another solution.

I guess the only thing that might really make a difference is a change in the pricing structure. They charge us by the number of ports that we have on our switches. The more ports we have on the switch, the more we have to pay — even if we're not using all of the ports. From the point of view of licensing, there could be some kind of improvement. I think it would be better if we were paying for actual usage.

If there were additional features to add, I might suggest better options for integration with the firewall. I know that the product has this feature already, but it's something we haven't explored more deeply because it isn't the reason we use the solution. If there were better integration with our firewall, we might be able to do additional things like creating policies that would block ports that are under attack or other things like that which could be beneficial.

Portnox has the integration capability, but as far as I know, it's not something that's really built into the solution. It involves some scripting. I think that if they made that easier to deploy, we would definitely use it.

This solution is stable and it just works. We don't ever have any problems with it.

We don't have any issues with scalability. Whenever we grow, the only question about scalability is determining how many licenses to add and then just adding the licenses. As the company grows and we expand, the usage grows as well.

Right now, we're licensed for about 800 ports. That means that up to 800 devices can be connected. It's easy to add the licenses. It just gets more expensive when you do.

Our experience with customer support is pretty limited. We haven't contacted them for a long time. But, generally, when we do have to contact them — for whatever reason — we get good support from them.

It has been a while since the initial setup, but I recall that it was pretty simple. It might have only taken a day to deploy. Then it might have taken a couple of days running checks on the system. In all, it only took a couple of days.

When we did the deployment we used an integrator that we use regularly from time-to-time for implementing our security products. Our experience with the integrator is always good and everything works fine. We are very pleased with the integrator's services.

One return on the investment is that we don't need to dedicate employee time to monitoring the system. We just pay for the product.

As far as pricing, we only pay for support on a yearly basis. There are no other costs after you initially pay for the licenses. The only exception to that is if you need to add devices to the system. If you add to the system you need to license more ports. You need to pay for the additional licensing. Other than that it essentially works by itself so it is like having another employee for the cost of support.

I don't know the exact prices but I know the product is not cheap.

Before we decided on Portnox CORE as a solution, we did try other solutions to compare. I'm talking around six years back, so remembering the reasons for everything isn't that easy. In the end, we decided this was the solution we needed. Today there may be other solutions in the market that do the same thing — maybe in a better way, I don't know — but this solution satisfied us at the time, and since then we're happy with it. There's no reason to explore other options until the solution isn't providing what we need. Even then, it may be an opportunity to explore more of the existing product's capabilities.

One of the products we did evaluate was SportScout. It was more complicated and we found it was more complex to implement at the time. I don't know how it is today. It may be better and improved by simplifying some of the processes involved in the deployment. At the time it was obvious that it would be more complex and take a lot more time to integrate it into the company. It had a false-positive issue.

We really like the solution and it does what we need it to, so in rating it let's say we give it a nine out of ten. It's just hard for me to give anything a ten because that means it is perfect. But truly, I have nothing bad to say about the product. It's a good product and it helped us tremendously in the years in locating all kinds of issues that we had on the network. It does that very quickly and reliably and I recommend it.

The product is something we use on a daily basis. It's something that's always working away in the background. We get reports, we get alerts, we assess what the alerts are telling us and then we take action as necessary. If that's what an organization needs, then this is a very good solution.

The primary use of Portnox was for Network Access Control (NAC) and management. It was used to control and manage access to the network in my client's network. Unauthorised devices were locked out until approved and granted by the NAC manager. It showed information including the IP address, MAC address, hostname of device, username, switch location, and port number of where a device is connected to. It covers both wired and wireless. 

Portnox CORE helped in securing my client's threat landscape from attackers and hackers.

For the information security team, the security level was improved because it helped to manage and prevent rogue devices from connecting to the corporate network. The reporting was granular, and reports we scheduled for delivery on Portnox were useful during investigations and audits, especially in cases where the IP address changed.

For network support, it helped in troubleshooting the type of connection challenge that a device or user experienced. Network engineers could identify the location of the device on a switch to verify if the user's challenge was network or device related.

NAS view page gave a virtual graphical view of the switches, similar to the physical view, and just like how you see the ports on them. 

There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device.

It has a feature to check the compliance state of computers. An example is for an antivirus. It checks if it was installed, installed but not running, or not installed, then it defines policy action based on compliance status, which it applies.

It supports a good number of known antivirus products.

It has scheduling reports for backward review of incidents.

Its knowledge base refers you to similar tickets or solutions.

Areas that Portnox CORE can improve include: 

1. Support for unmanaged switches (or hubs) and other brands of network devices. These kinds of devices are still in use in organisations, especially SMEs who cannot afford to buy a managed switch.
2. The licensing module. This 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.  
   

Over three years.

It is stable.

There has been progress from research and development when requests are made or something unusual is discovered during support.

Portnox customer service has been good and quick to respond.

No.

Deployment is straightforward.

Vendor implementation.

The vendor price is fair. licensing was per total number of switch ports.

None.

It's being used in a bank of over 4,000 devices, and so far it has been good. No complaints.

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 agentless, and it's scalable.

For now, they just released the new version which has a completely different design interface, and there are some other improvements that were added onto it. So we need to look at it and understand how these features impact the performance and all that before we can make a recommendation.

One thing they can look at is increasing the number of support staff so that there will be more people supporting the solution than they currently have.

It's very, very, stable. 

Of course, it's a scalable solution. One server can support up to 10,000 endpoints and cannot equally be deployed in clusters, where you need more than 10,000.

Tech support is good.

It was easy. It was straightforward. Once you follow the guides it's not complicated.

When selecting a product, if I want to bring in a new solution, I will look up the competing solution: What features do they have that are better than what I'm bringing, which will put me in a better position to make an informed decision and advise the customer accordingly.

If I'm to advise a customer that wants to buy a similar solution, I would first of all find out what their needs are, what their priorities are. Would they want agent or agentless? Would they want software or hardware? Those are the questions I would have to ask before I can say, "Go for this," or, "Go for that." Honestly, all NAC solutions are the same, they do the basic work. So it all depends on the environment, what is obtainable. Some companies don't want agents in their environment, so they go for agentless. Some don't want hardware, so they go for software. So my position is to advise.

I rate this solution a seven out of 10 because it meets my needs of ensuring that my network is protected. But then, I believe there's room for improvement.