Source-Backed Comparison
SecurePoint USA vs iLobby
SecurePoint and iLobby solve different enterprise problems. SecurePoint is built for sanctions-screened visitor access, adjudication, ITAR/CMMC evidence, and after-visit exports. iLobby VisitorOS, inside FacilityOS, is stronger when the buyer wants a broader facility-operations suite with visitor management, emergency management, contractor compliance, logistics, and physical identity/access management.
Based on SecurePoint repo truth and publicly available materials reviewed on 2026-06-09.
Choose SecurePoint if
Your visitor program is driven by compliance-screening depth, not general facility-operations consolidation.
Visitors, contractors, hosts, or education parties need OFAC/BIS and multi-list sanctions screening tied to the visit record.
Your buyer is an FSO, export-control lead, compliance manager, or auditor who needs reviewer decisions and evidence exports.
ITAR, EAR, CMMC, or sanctions-screening records must be produced quickly without rebuilding spreadsheets after the visit.
Choose iLobby if
You want enterprise visitor management as part of a wider facility-operations platform.
Emergency management, contractor compliance, logistics, or PIAM/access-control modules are required in the same suite.
Named access-control integration and credential provisioning are higher priority than sanctions adjudication depth.
Your primary buyer is facility operations or physical security operations rather than export-control compliance.
Comparison
Where the approaches actually separate
This table only includes points we can defend publicly from current repo evidence and current public materials.
Visitor compliance focus
Purpose-built around sanctions-screened visitor access, structured adjudication, escort/badge evidence, and after-visit compliance exports for regulated facilities.
VisitorOS is positioned as enterprise visitor management for security and compliance within the broader FacilityOS platform.
Sanctions and export-control list screening
Screens visitors against OFAC SDN, BIS Entity List, UN, EU, and UK lists during check-in, then records the result for review and evidence.
Public materials describe visitor screening, compliance workflows, and access-control checks; OFAC, BIS, ITAR, or CMMC-specific screening is not described as a primary public product claim.
Flagged-visitor adjudication
Potential matches route to a structured adjudication queue with reviewer action, escalation path, and audit-exportable decision record.
Public materials emphasize automated visitor workflows, approvals, and access provisioning; a sanctions-match adjudication record for assessor review is not described in current public materials.
After-visit evidence
Evidence packs connect visitor identity, screening outcome, badge state, host/escort record, and reviewer decision into one audit-ready export.
Public materials describe reporting, analytics, visitor documents, data retention, and audit readiness; a bundled sanctions/adjudication evidence-pack path is not described in current public materials.
Access-control integrations
Supports compliance-first visitor workflows with API and SSO integration paths; named access-control integration breadth is not the main public differentiator today.
Public materials and partner pages describe access-control integration, credential provisioning, entry based on sign-in events, and access activity reporting.
Facility operations breadth
Focused on compliance screening, visitor operations, evidence, and related regulated-workflow products rather than facility operations as a suite.
FacilityOS publicly packages visitor management alongside emergency management, contractor compliance, logistics, and physical identity/access management modules.
Neutral Read
Where iLobby and FacilityOS are stronger today
A credible comparison should separate facility-operations breadth from sanctions-screening depth.
Broader facility-operations suite
FacilityOS publicly packages visitor management with emergency management, contractor compliance, logistics, and physical identity/access management. Buyers consolidating facility operations may prefer that breadth.
Access-control integration story
Public partner materials describe iLobby integration with Avigilon Alta for access provisions, visitor credentials, entry events, and activity logs. That is stronger public integration proof than SecurePoint currently publishes.
Emergency-management module
EmergencyOS is publicly positioned around notifications, evacuations, return-to-site workflows, reporting, and analytics. SecurePoint should not imply equivalent emergency-management depth today.
Trust And Proof
What SecurePoint can publish clearly right now
Sanctions-screened visitor access
SecurePoint screens visitors against OFAC SDN, BIS Entity List, UN, EU, and UK lists during the visit workflow and records the result.
ITAR and CMMC visitor evidence
SecurePoint Visitor pages and whitepapers are built around export-control visitor workflows, escort evidence, badge records, and physical access logs.
After-visit evidence packs
After-visit reports and evidence packs connect screening, adjudication, badge, host, and escort facts into one audit-ready export.
Frequently asked questions
When is SecurePoint the better fit than iLobby VisitorOS?
SecurePoint is the better fit when the buying requirement is sanctions-screened visitor management: OFAC and export-control list screening, structured adjudication, ITAR and CMMC visitor evidence, and after-visit evidence packs. That is a narrower but deeper compliance lane than general enterprise visitor operations.
Where is iLobby or FacilityOS stronger today?
iLobby/FacilityOS is stronger when the buyer wants a broader facility-operations platform with visitor management, emergency management, contractor compliance, logistics, physical identity/access management, and publicly documented access-control integration.
Does SecurePoint replace FacilityOS?
No. SecurePoint should be evaluated as a compliance-screening visitor management and evidence platform. FacilityOS should be evaluated as a broader facility-operations platform. The right choice depends on whether the buyer needs compliance-screening depth or facilities-suite breadth.
What should defense contractors compare first?
Defense contractors should compare whether the workflow captures OFAC/BIS screening results, escalates possible matches, documents reviewer action, supports ITAR/EAR visitor controls, and exports evidence that an FSO, auditor, or assessor can review.
See the compliance-screening visitor workflow end to end
Walk through check-in, sanctions screening, possible-match review, badge state, and after-visit evidence in one focused demo.