Top 10 Safe-T Secure Application Access Alternatives

Name: Safe-T Secure Application Access
Brand: Safe-T
Rating: 3.9 (8 reviews)

Vendor: Safe-T

3.9 out of 5

8 reviews
85% willing to recommend

Leave a review

Top Safe-T Secure Application Access Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Safe-T Secure Application Access based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Okta Platform, and Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81). The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Safe-T Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Safe-T, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks

4.1 out of 5

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks

4.1 out of 5

Safe-T Secure Application Access offers robust security and cost-effectiveness, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, Prisma Access provides a comprehensive solution with advanced features and integration capabilities, justifying its higher cost for those seeking extensive functionality and superior customer support.

Download Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

Safe-T Secure Application Access has minimal setup costs, while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks involves a higher initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

Safe-T Secure Application Access has minimal setup costs, while Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks involves a higher initial investment.

Okta Platform

4.3 out of 5

Okta Platform

4.3 out of 5

Okta Platform offers intuitive design and extensive integrations. In comparison, Safe-T Secure Application Access focuses on strong network-level security. Okta attracts those seeking flexibility and broad features, while Safe-T appeals to those prioritizing secure connectivity with lower initial costs.

Download Okta Platform vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

Okta Platform has reported high setup costs while Safe-T Secure Application Access is noted for lower setup costs, highlighting a key difference in initial investment requirements.

View comparison

Pricing

Okta Platform has reported high setup costs while Safe-T Secure Application Access is noted for lower setup costs, highlighting a key difference in initial investment requirements.

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81)

4.4 out of 5

Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81)

4.4 out of 5

Safe-T Secure Application Access offers cost-effective secure access solutions, appealing to budget-conscious businesses. In comparison, Check Point Harmony SASE provides an extensive feature set and robust security capabilities, making it suitable for organizations prioritizing a comprehensive and dynamic security approach.

Download Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

Safe-T Secure Application Access offers lower setup costs compared to Check Point Harmony SASE, highlighting a cost-effective option for initial deployment, while Check Point Harmony SASE may provide more features justifying its higher setup expense.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenVPN Access Server

4.2 out of 5

OpenVPN Access Server

4.2 out of 5

OpenVPN Access Server excels with cost-effective pricing and straightforward deployment. In comparison, Safe-T Secure Application Access offers advanced security features and granular access controls, justifying its higher cost for those prioritizing comprehensive security over budget, along with deeper customer support.

Download OpenVPN Access Server vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

OpenVPN Access Server has a straightforward initial setup cost, whereas Safe-T Secure Application Access requires a more extensive initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenVPN Access Server has a straightforward initial setup cost, whereas Safe-T Secure Application Access requires a more extensive initial investment.

Cisco Duo

4.4 out of 5

Cisco Duo

4.4 out of 5

Cisco Duo secures system access through multi-factor authentication, used by organizations for accessing email, VPNs, and databases. It integrates with Microsoft 365 and Google Cloud, enhancing security through simple login and management. Users appreciate the security layers and flexibility. Challenges include integration, pricing, and the need for improved deployment and automation.

Download Cisco Duo vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

During testing we are allowed a certain number of licenses for free.

Its price is reasonable. It is not highly expensive.

View comparison

Pricing

During testing we are allowed a certain number of licenses for free.

Its price is reasonable. It is not highly expensive.

Cisco Secure Client (including AnyConnect)

4.2 out of 5

Cisco Secure Client (including AnyConnect)

4.2 out of 5

Safe-T Secure Application Access excels in pricing and customer support. In comparison, Cisco Secure Client offers superior features and functionality, making its higher price worthwhile. Safe-T is easier to deploy, while Cisco focuses on performance. Tech buyers may choose based on pricing or advanced features.

Download Cisco Secure Client (including AnyConnect) vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

Safe-T Secure Application Access has lower initial setup costs compared to Cisco Secure Client, which may have higher setup expenses depending on the deployment scale.

View comparison

Pricing

Safe-T Secure Application Access has lower initial setup costs compared to Cisco Secure Client, which may have higher setup expenses depending on the deployment scale.

CyberArk Identity

4.1 out of 5

CyberArk Identity

4.1 out of 5

CyberArk Identity is favored for its competitive pricing and strong ROI, with responsive customer service and comprehensive identity management. In comparison, Safe-T Secure Application Access excels in secure remote access and application isolation features, with users appreciating its overall value despite higher initial costs.

Download CyberArk Identity vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

CyberArk Identity's setup cost is often considered high compared to Safe-T Secure Application Access, which offers a more straightforward and budget-friendly setup process. CyberArk Identity's setup is detailed and complex, requiring more resources than Safe-T Secure Application Access.

View comparison

Pricing

Appgate SDP

4.4 out of 5

Appgate SDP

4.4 out of 5

Appgate SDP attracts tech buyers with cost-effectiveness, scalability, and strong support, offering dynamic, context-aware security. In comparison, tech buyers might select Safe-T Secure Application Access for robust application-layer security, an easier deployment process, and features that justify its higher upfront cost.

Download Appgate SDP vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

Appgate SDP often involves lower setup costs compared to Safe-T Secure Application Access, which can be more expensive to implement.

View comparison

Pricing

Appgate SDP often involves lower setup costs compared to Safe-T Secure Application Access, which can be more expensive to implement.

Oracle Access Manager

4.0 out of 5

Oracle Access Manager

4.0 out of 5

Oracle Access Manager excels in reliable performance with valuable single sign-on and Oracle integration features. In comparison, Safe-T Secure Application Access is preferred for its comprehensive secure access capabilities, including data protection and secure file access, appealing to those prioritizing robust security.

Download Oracle Access Manager vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access Report

Pricing

Oracle Access Manager has a higher setup cost while Safe-T Secure Application Access offers a more affordable initial setup.

View comparison

Pricing

Oracle Access Manager has a higher setup cost while Safe-T Secure Application Access offers a more affordable initial setup.

Related categories

Enterprise Infrastructure VPN

Access Management

ZTNA