We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Saviynt based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."They provide you multiple ways to achieve security, not only on-prem, but also when you have remote and guest workers. Especially post-pandemic, a lot of our customers have remote workers. So, it has been really helpful."
"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 endpoint profiling feature is among the most valuable because it keeps me from having to manually maintain a MAC address bypass list to track endpoints. I can have ISE profile them for me and then put them in the right bucket."
"The solution cuts down on the repercussions of getting malware or ransomware."
"They have recently made a lot of improvements. My clients don't have much to complain about."
"It provides client provisions and profiling as well as guest access."
"The solution enables us to do everything from one interface."
"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."
"Considering the initial cost and the basic features, this is a good solution that provides integration with both on-premise and cloud applications."
"The product has a great attestation feature."
"The dedicated Freshdesk platform is a user community and a step in the right direction for offering learning resources."
"The workflow in Saviynt is easier compared to other tools. It's pretty straightforward."
"The product is flexible to use."
"It gives very good and in-depth knowledge about a particular identity. Everything is through a single click. We get to know the workflows related to a particular identity with a single click."
"Saviynt is easy to configure and manage."
"Saviynt is used for the greenfield implementation for the whole IAM, IGA, MFA, SSO, and access management."
"Third-party integration is important, as well as the continuous adaptation feature which is the AIOps. It would be helpful to include the AIOps."
"An issue with the product is it tends to have a lot of bugs whenever they release a new release."
"If Cisco could grant more control, the features could be more focused on network and security administration, reducing the need for integration with other components."
"Troubleshooting and multi-ISE can be challenging with the solution."
"It is a good product, but in order to use all of the functions of the product, you must have a good understanding of the product. You must know how to use and manage it. It is a little bit complicated to configure and manage. It must be simplified to make it easy to manage for end users. In the initial stage, we found ISE complicated for end users. It was not easy to manage it or to write authentication and authorization protocol. They must improve its management and make it easy for end users. The monitoring and reporting capabilities can be improved because end users want to quickly see what is happening in their network. There were some restrictions in working with other vendors. It should also have a better and easy integration with other vendors."
"They should improve their licensing. Licensing is always trouble with Cisco, and Cisco Identity Services Engine is no different. The way the product is licensed could be improved."
"The web interface needs improvement. The new web interface that they have is not as easy to manage and we find it to be very slow."
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"The custom application integration is a little complex, and this tool doesn't provide so many plugins or additional applications."
"According to feedback I've received, some users prefer SailPoint over Saviynt in real complex environments. SailPoint has its provisioning platform. Complex integrations may pose challenges in scenarios like a large bank with thousands of users, making SailPoint a preferred choice for some."
"The biggest drawback is that for every change you want to make, you have to go back to them and ask for it."
"It is time-consuming to troubleshoot issues."
"The tool is difficult to migrate."
"Saviynt cannot customize based on customer needs."
"The company needs to do more to establish standard practices within the product itself that are common in the industry."
"Both SailPoint IdentityNow and Saviynt have some bugs, but SailPoint is considered more mature with fewer bugs due to its longer establishment in the market since around 2005. SailPoint had its share of bugs in the early days, but they have resolved them over time, resulting in a stable product. Saviynt, on the other hand, was launched around 2013 or 2014 and is actively working to improve its product. Despite having some bugs, Saviynt is making progress and aims to build a stable product, but it is not there yet."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while Saviynt is ranked 5th in Identity Management (IM) with 21 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Saviynt is rated 7.4. 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 Saviynt writes "Used for IAM, IGA, MFA, SSO, and access management". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Saviynt is most compared with SailPoint Identity Security Cloud, Microsoft Entra ID, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Okta Workforce Identity and Microsoft Identity Manager.
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.