Dynamic endpoint policy enforcement and access control, seamless roaming from VPN to on-premises and more.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Ivanti Policy Secure (IPS) | 3.0% |
| Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) | 18.6% |
| Aruba ClearPass | 18.0% |
| Other | 60.4% |
Ivanti Policy Secure (IPS) was previously known as Pulse Policy Secure.
Entegrus
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| IT Security Manager & Chief IT Engineer at JVPC | 4.0 | I find Ivanti NAC's most valuable feature to be its reasonable pricing, although the product's performance could use improvement. I did not consider or previously use other solutions, and there's no information about ROI or deployment providers. |
| Associate Network Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees | 4.0 | I use Pulse Policy Secure for securing local networks with various enforcement methods like SNMP. The valuable profiler feature lets me access detailed network information. However, server caching issues and inaccurate reports need improvement to enhance customer experience. |
| Cyber Security Consultant at a computer software company with 11-50 employees | 3.5 | As an implementor, I find the initial setup complex and the documentation confusing. While vendor integration is possible, it needs improvement, as do the GUI and SAML support. I rate the solution a seven out of ten. |
The product's performance needs improvement.
I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten.
I rate Ivanti NAC's scalability an eight out of ten. We have 150 users for it.
I contacted the product's support team through a local reseller. But it was not too often as I was able to manage the issues.
The initial setup process is straightforward. The deployment process depends on specific requirements. It takes a few hours to complete and requires one person to execute it.
We implemented the product with the help of an integrator.
The product is cost-effective.
I rate Ivanti NAC an eight out of ten.
Pulse Policy Secure provides security to local networks. They have multiple ways to enforce their NAC servers like SNMP enforcement. They can use either the ACL enforcement, NAC enforcement or .onex. They have multiple methods to complete configuration as per a customer's requirement.
The profiler option allows me to see every detail in a systematic manner from a switch. I can choose the switch and I can see the port NAC address and time.
At some point, the server got cached and we faced several issues that impacted our customers. We would like to have this resolved.
The reporting for this solution could also be more accurate.
I have been using this solution for one year.
This is a stable solution.
This is a scalable solution but does have a limit of 50,000.
The technical support for this solution is good. They provide quick responses, are helpful and very knowledgeable.
The initial set up is very simple to understand if you have basic knowledge of networking because the admin guide is very accurate. The admin guide can be found on the internet and provides each step that needs to be followed for the set up.
I would rate the setup a four out of five.
I would advise others to understand the needs of their business or the needs of their customer who they are providing this solution for. If you want to configure or authenticate a LAN network with some ACLs, SNMPs or ACL enforcement, I would recommend Ivanti.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
I'm largely just overseeing and supervising the implementation phase. As an implementor, I don't work directly with the solution myself.
There is documentation available that can assist in understanding the product.
Integration with other vendors is possible.
The initial setup is a bit complex.
The documentation needs to be improved. There are a lot of details that are missed which makes it confusing.
The ability to handle SAML integration for authentication is also not that straightforward.
The ability to handle the server authentication documentation is poor.
The GUI needs to be a bit better. It could be updated. It needs to be better organized and more accessible.
The integration with other vendors needs to be improved upon.
I've been dealing with the solution for six or seven months.
The initial setup is a bit complex. It's not exactly straightforward.
The only issue we have so far is the heterogeneity between multiple vendors. In general, for a successful implementation, you need to compare the compatibility between multiple vendors involved in setting up the nine to five in general, not only Pulse Secure. A lot of projects failed due to similar situations and they were using the PFS, for example, from HP.
As implementors, we can deploy this solution for our clients.
We're implementors.
Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.
