NAC) Market More Than Just NAC
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Analysis of the Global Network Access Control (NAC) Market More than just NAC NE66-74 December 2014 NE66-74 1 Research Team Lead Analyst Contributing Analyst Chris Kissel Chris Rodriguez Industry Analyst Senior Analyst ICT – Network Security ICT – Network Security (623) 910-7986 (210) 477-8423 [email protected] [email protected] Research Director Strategic Review Committee Leader Michael Suby Frank Dickson Stratecast VP of Research Research Director ICT – Network Security Information and Network Security 720-344-4860 469-387-0256 [email protected] [email protected] NE66-74 2 List of Exhibits Chart Slide Number Executive Summary 8 Key Findings 9 Market Engineering Measurements 11 CEO’s Perspective 16 Introduction to the Research 17 Key Questions This Study Will Answer 18 Market Overview 19 Market Overview—Definitions 22 Distribution Channels 24 Debate About 802.1X 26 Drivers and Restraints—Total Market 28 Market Drivers 29 Drivers Explained 30 Market Restraints 35 Restraints Explained 36 Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 3 List of Exhibits (continued) Chart Slide Number Forecasts and Trends—Total Market 40 Forecast Assumptions 41 Total NAC Unit Shipment 42 Total NAC Revenue Forecast 43 Total NAC Unit Shipment and Revenue Forecast 44 Total NAC Market―Pricing Trends and Forecast 46 Total NAC Market—Unit Shipment Forecast by Region 48 Total NAC Market—Revenue Forecast by Region 49 Total NAC Market—Unit Shipment Forecast by Distribution Channel 51 Total NAC Market—Revenue Forecast by Distribution Channel 52 Total NAC Market—Unit Shipment by Product Type 54 Total NAC Market—Revenue Forecast by Product Type 55 Forecasts and Trends—Vertical Markets 57 Total NAC Market—Unit Shipment Forecast by Vertical Market 58 Total NAC Market—Revenue Forecast by Vertical Market 59 Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 4 List of Exhibits (continued) Chart Slide Number Dynamics of Vertical Markets using NAC with Case Studies 61 Case Study—Erickson Living 68 Case Study—Financial Sector 71 Case Study—Midsized Manufacturer 74 Case Study—Venable, LLP 77 Market Share and Competitive Analysis— Total Market 79 Competitive Analysis—Market Share 80 Competitive Environment 82 Market Share and Versatility of NAC Solution 84 Enterprise Segment Breakdown 87 Market Engineering Measurements 88 Enterprise NAC Unit Shipment and Revenue Forecast 90 Enterprise NAC Segment—Pricing Trends and Forecast 91 Enterprise NAC Competitive Analysis—Market Share 93 Enterprise NAC Competitive Environment 94 Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 5 List of Exhibits (continued) Chart Slide Number SMB Segment Breakdown 96 Market Engineering Measurements 97 SMB NAC Unit Shipments and Revenue Forecast 99 SMB NAC Segment—Pricing Trends and Forecast 100 SMB NAC Competitive Analysis—Market Share 102 SMB NAC Competitive Environment 103 The Last Word 105 Predictions 106 Recommendations 107 Legal Disclaimer 108 Vendor Profiles 109 Vendor Profile—Aruba Networks 110 Vendor Profile—Auconet, Inc. 124 Vendor Profile—Avaya Networks 132 Vendor Profile—Bradford Networks 140 Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 6 List of Exhibits (continued) Chart Slide Number Vendor Profile—Cisco 148 Vendor Profile — ForeScout Technologies, Inc. 163 Vendor Profile—Impulse 176 Vendor Profile—Pulse Secure 184 Appendix 197 Market Engineering Methodology 198 Abbreviations 199 List of Companies Included in “Others” 201 Partial List of Companies Interviewed 202 Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 7 Executive Summary NE66-74 8 Key Findings • Frost & Sullivan estimates network access control (NAC) vendors sold $399.8M of NAC appliances and NAC SaaS for the basis year of the study 2013. This represented an improvement of 40.5% more than 2012. • For 2014, much is the same. Anticipated revenues in NAC are $552.8M or a 38.3% improvement. • At the heart of the matter is NAC is a foundational network security defense—endpoints are ultimately the place where intrusions to networks happen, and the last chance to defend or detect a network breach. • NAC vendors can be lauded for improving the fundamentals of traditional aspects of NAC platforms. Devices are easier to register and place onboard onto networks; directories are easier to integrate onto RADIUS servers; and BYOD and mobile devices are easier to recognize and protect. • NAC vendors can additionally be lauded for expanding their platforms. In recent years, three larger technological developments have made NAC more essential to network security: 1. Endpoint visibility including configuration assessment adds value to the platform and helps to provide crucial information about corporate assets, specialized devices, their location, and the security posture of endpoints. 2. NAC platforms are being bidirectionally integrated with other network and security platforms. If properly done, NAC integrated with firewall, advanced threat detection (ATD), vulnerability management (VM), security information and event management (SIEM), mobile device management (MDM), and other platforms improves the efficacy of both NAC and the integrated platforms, and allows these platforms to trigger NAC defense actions. 3. With true endpoint visibility and improved posture assessment, NAC adds “context” to controls. IT Directors can establish very granular policies; can build risk management into NAC; decrease the number of alerts; and anticipate potential weaknesses in the network through posture assessment and visibility into configurations. Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 9 Key Findings (continued) • The size of NAC deployments are getting larger. Enterprise and mid-sized networks are expanding to include more devices per employee and BYOD. • Beyond “greenfield” opportunities, organic growth is also happening as IT Directors are dismissing first-generation NAC issues and realizing next generation NAC capabilities and advantages. Prior installations are upgrading and expanding requirements and implementation coverage at the time of contract renewals. • In 2013, the average selling price (ASP) for an small to medium-sized business (SMB) NAC is $35,581. By 2018, the same deployment will be $41,227. • The ASP for an enterprise NAC in 2013 is $121,441. By 2018, the same deployment will be $144,784. Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 10 Market Engineering Measurements Total 2013 NAC Market: Market Engineering Measurements, Global, 2013 Market Overview Market Size for Market Market Average Price Market Stage Last Year of Revenue Units/Volume Per Unit Study Period Growth $399.8 5,935 $67,364 $1.46 (In Millions) Base Year 2013 Base Year 2013 (In Billions) Base Year Compound Degree of Customer Price Market Market Growth Annual Growth Technical Sensitivity Concentration Rate Rate Change 40.5% 29.5% 6 9 69.5% Base Year 2013 CAGR (2010―2018) Base Year 2013 Base Year 2013 Market Share Top 3 Competitors Decreasing Stable Increasing For a tabular version, click here. Note: All figures are rounded. The base year is 2013. Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 11 Market Engineering Measurements (continued) Total 2013 NAC Market: Market Engineering Measurements, Global, 2013 Competitor Overview Total Addressable Market Number of Number of Number of Replacement Attachment Companies that Companies that Competitors Rate Rate Exited Entered 14 0 0 1.2 10,000 Base Year 2013 Base Year 2013 Base Year 2013 Years per appliance Total Addressable Market Industry Advancement Average Maximum Average R&D Marketing Spend Current Product Attachment Spend by as a Percent of Potential Users Development Rate Product Market Revenue Time 300,000 100,000 1.4 16.5% 10.6% on one central console potential deployments Years Base Year 2013 Base Year 2013 Decreasing Stable Increasing *Companies with revenue of more than $1.0 M Note: All figures are rounded. The base year is 2013. Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 12 Market Engineering Measurements (continued) • The purpose of this section is to explain the Market Engineering Measurements overviews, total addressable market, and product development criteria. • In the upcoming sections, Market Overview and Drivers and Restraints—Total Market, how NAC vendors improved their businesses by 40.5% from 2012 to 2013 is discussed. • Market revenues are determined by rolling up the estimated revenues of NAC service providers. • The average NAC deployment varied in cost. For instance, the deployments in the educational market are notable for having many endpoints, but lower deployments costs per end user than the financial markets. • Customer price sensitivity is a subjective criterion. If Vendor A and Vendor B offer nearly identical services for a customer with basic NAC requirements, then the lower cost vendor is likely to win the account. In enterprise accounts, NAC vendors have been able to successfully differentiate based upon product functionality. • NAC platform and diversity of support and services varies greatly between NAC vendors. Reliability, extent of endpoint intelligence, policy engine granularity, post-admission controls, complementing other technology platforms, and scalability features are more important than pricing in winning, maintaining, and expanding NAC accounts. • The degree of technical change is also subjective. Not only are NAC platforms difficult technologies to execute, but in 2013, NAC platforms also expanded in several significant ways (see Drivers Explained). Source: Frost & Sullivan NE66-74 13 Market Engineering Measurements (continued) • The Top 3 NAC providers in terms of revenue are (Cisco, ForeScout, and Juniper Networks). In 2013, these vendors accounted for