No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Forescout Platform vs Impulse Point SafeConnect comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Forescout Platform
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
79
Ranking in other categories
IoT Security (4th), Endpoint Compliance (2nd), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (19th)
Impulse Point SafeConnect
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
16th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Forescout Platform is 8.6%, down from 12.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Impulse Point SafeConnect is 1.7%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Forescout Platform8.6%
Impulse Point SafeConnect1.7%
Other89.7%
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
CD
Director of Computer Information Services at a university with 5,001-10,000 employees
Easy to scale, enforces policies well, and has responsive technical support
A lot of campuses use SafeConnect. It gives us good visibility and enforces policies. It helps enforce network security by scanning devices, making sure they have current and valid antivirus solutions with up-to-date antivirus definitions, and steers our end users by enforcing policy groups and steering them to the right access. Technical support is responsive. The stability is pretty good. It is very easy to scale the product.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Vulnerability remediation is valuable. We can narrow down a system and its properties. We can go granular on the properties of each endpoint, such as which operating system you're using."
"Since implementing Forescout, our environment is significantly more secure."
"I have noticed that in the last year the license model has changed from licensing the whole appliance to licensing the number of devices. It's more simple for a large installation, or a user to have CounterACT as their peripheral site in the company. It's a good choice to have changed the license policy."
"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 stability is amazing for the Forescout Platform. We have been using Forescout for four years, and no one complained about the stability."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment, which does not require the use of an agent."
"Forescout Platform is stable, it is great."
"My advice to others is Forescout Platform is a good solution; it's fairly simple to deploy in an environment, far better than the other products in which we have done a POC, and has good stability and performance."
"It gives us good visibility and enforces policies, helps enforce network security by scanning devices, making sure they have current and valid antivirus solutions with up-to-date antivirus definitions, and steers our end users by enforcing policy groups and steering them to the right access."
"It is very easy to scale the product."
 

Cons

"Initially, the implementation of the Forescout Platform took some time to figure out."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The reporting could be improved."
"Forescout Platform sometimes returns false positives, so there's some fine-tuning to be done there."
"In terms of technical support, their engineering team is very rigid."
"Regarding pricing, there is room for improvement to enhance competitiveness with other vendors and solutions."
"I would rate this solution 7 out of 10."
"The biggest disadvantage is the pricing."
"The solution would be much better if it offered self-service onboarding."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing structure should be enhanced."
"5,000 user licenses will cost you between seven and eight million dollars, compared to 20 million for Aruba."
"Licenses are perpetual but can come with renewable support."
"We need to pay for integration for each integration that we want to do and there is an additional license fee. This adds more costs. It is not something that anyone can afford. If you want to integrate this with a lot of other tools, it can be costly."
"The price of the Forescout Platform is expensive. I purchased it for approximately 94 lakhs."
"The solution’s pricing is fine."
"The cost of licensing for this product is quite high, but this cost covers all the features of the solution so it is a single payment for the term that has been selected."
"You can have a flexible license depending on your environment."
"For our tier group, for one year, the cost is probably around $10,000 for the license. If you do multi-year, you could get two years, and you could get it for about $8,000 per year. If you do three years, you get it around $7,000 a year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise45
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Forescout Platform, CounterACT for Endpoint Compliance, ForeScout CounterACT
SafeConnect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NHS Sussex, SAP, SEGA, Vistaprint, Miami Children's Hospital, Pioneer Investments, New York Law School, OmnicomGroup, Meritrust
Aerohive Solution
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Fortinet, Cisco and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.