Analysis of the Global Network Access Control (NAC) Market : More than Just NAC

News provided by

Jan 05, 2015, 08:15 ET

LONDON, Jan. 5, 2015 /PRNewswire/ --

Key Findings

•Frost & Sullivan estimates network access control (NAC) vendors sold $ x M of NAC appliances and NAC SaaS for the basis year of the study 2013. This represented an improvement of x % more than 2012.

•For 2014, much is the same. Anticipated revenues in NAC are $ x M or a x % 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.

•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 $ x . By 2018, the same deployment will be $ x .

•The ASP for an enterprise NAC in 2013 is $ x . By 2018, the same deployment will be $ x .

Market Engineering Measurements

•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 x % 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.

•The Top 3 NAC providers in terms of revenue are (Cisco, ForeScout, and Juniper Networks). In 2013, these vendors accounted for x % of all NAC revenues; Frost & Sullivan believes the market share of Cisco and ForeScout will continue to grow through 2018, with Aruba Networks surpassing Juniper Networks (now Pulse Secure) as anticipated market leaders.

•Frost & Sullivan counts 14 NAC vendors with revenues of more than $ x million in 2013.

•The replacement rate is the contract duration rate that businesses typically have for either NAC as a service or to license an appliance. Almost all licensee dates are for one year, but contracts are sometimes signed for longer as businesses want to lock in maintenance and support pricing.

•The attachment rate is the average capacity for a single appliance. Vendors have capacity ratings for the number of endpoints in total, and also for the number of active endpoints at any given time. The average appliance is capable of handling x active endpoints, but can store the profiles of x endpoints.

•The maximum attachment rate is how many endpoints can be monitored and managed from one console (or one single pane of glass). Some vendors say that their platforms are infinitely scalable, but the largest deployments Frost & Sullivan is aware of accommodates x ? centrally managed endpoints.

•In statistics kept by the US Census Bureau, there were x US businesses in 2011, with x or more employees. Frost & Sullivan extrapolates a global number of business that have x or more employees and have a significant Internet presence to be x businesses. The x businesses represents the number of companies that could buy a NAC product.

•Since January 2013, NAC appliance vendors have been especially aggressive toward making major enhancements in their platforms with a new release one to two years.

•Frost & Sullivan estimates research and development spending represented x % of revenue in 2013. This R&D spending will slow to x - x % of revenues through 2018.

•NAC vendors recognized their products were hot in 2013, and spent a relatively high amount on marketing. In 2013, NAC vendors spent roughly x % on marketing.

CEO's Perspective

In terms of global revenues, for the years 2013–2018, NAC vendors should expect x % CAGR.

The factors driving NAC sales include granular policy settings, full endpoint visibility, ease of deployment, and integration with other security tools.

In terms of regional markets, the Americas represents more than x % of the global market during the forecast period.

The leading NAC vendors are having success in winning greenfield installations and in expanding existing relationships.

NAC vendors understand the importance of endpoint visibility and compliance, other technology platforms will offer different aspects of endpoint visibility.

Purpose of the Research

oThis report provides an analysis of the market for global NAC including:

Four years of historical market sizing including the base year of 2013 and five years of market forecast

Drivers and restraints

Market shares for the market participants

Market description and market trends

Individual company profiles of the market participants

Key Questions

This Study Will Answer

What are notable points of competitive differentiation between NAC vendors?

What are the forecasts for NAC unit shipments and revenues by region? By vertical market? By size of business? By product type?

What is the market share for NAC vendors for the total global market for business sizes SMB and enterprises?