We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and macmon Network Access Control based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I love the policy sets, they are really nice and dynamic."
"The most valuable thing in ISE is the adoption of EAP deep that came in [version] 2.7, so we can do authentication based on user and machine certificates in one authentication."
"We were originally a Cisco shop and Cisco ISE integrated well with our other Cisco switches and networks."
"The policy sets give us more granular groups for end-user access."
"With NAC, the profiling feature is valuable. We're able to see what we have out there in the network and dynamically assign policies to it. We can then use that to enforce TrustSec policy or anything else with NAC."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility element, the ability for customers to be able to see what devices are actually on their network. Without a solution like ISE, they would have no idea what devices are connected to their network. It offers them the ability to authenticate devices via mobile."
"Not having to trust devices and being able to set those levels of trust and more finely control our network is a benefit."
"I have found that all of the features are valuable. It is very easy to deploy because we are able to port users directly from Active Directory (AD) and LDAP."
"The API is a great way to get information from other tools."
"The ease of connecting with the client is valuable for me."
"We use it with our Cisco switches so we can see which switch it is actually connected to."
"Cisco ISE's real-time data analytics for database logging could be improved."
"The UI is not as intuitive as some other products, even products inside of Cisco's wheelhouse."
"The Guest Network verification needs to add a QR code option."
"The UI and UX could be more seamless and easier to use."
"The upgrades could be better. Every time we try to do an upgrade, we have problems. It's a pain."
"It would be helpful for us to know what needs to be deployed, configured, and what changes we need to make to our devices when we don't receive the specific login which is an indication of a lack of connection or incorrect configuration."
"Some of the reporting could be improved."
"There should be more visibility into TrustSec policy actions. When TrustSec blocks something or makes any kind of changes to the network, we don't always see that. We have to log into the switch itself, or we have to get some type of Syslog parsing to do that."
"The solution must allow users to filter files based on dates."
"The single sign-on process can be improved and the interface should be made more user-friendly."
"The service macmon offers is already great."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More macmon Network Access Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while macmon Network Access Control is ranked 9th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 3 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while macmon Network Access Control is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) writes "Gives us that extra ability to assist the end user and make sure that we are making them happy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of macmon Network Access Control writes "A robust solution that provides protection to effectively control the access to your network". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas macmon Network Access Control is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout Platform. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. macmon Network Access Control report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.