We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and ExtremeControl 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."In terms of features, I think they've done a lot of improvement on the graphical user interface — it looks really good right now."
"The most valuable feature is the provisioning of the device so as to ensure that they are compliant with the security policy that we need to have."
"Profiling is one of the most valuable features. We have a lot of different devices between cameras, access points, and laptops that get plugged in."
"For guests we give them limited access to the internet when they come in so that access has been useful. Previously, we just used to give them the APN key which they would leave with. Now, we give them credentials to use that are for a limited period of time."
"The solution enables us to do everything from one interface."
"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 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."
"My team has gained a lot from Cisco ISE as it does also provide automation, which is a big asset in the eighth hour. After setting it up, it took a lot of the weight off in many ways. We have a co-worker, who we call the ISE Master because he's in charge of the ISE configurations. He's able to save a lot of time by being able to monitor everything from there. So it did take off a lot of time that we would waste by going individually to that different device and trying to figure out what was wrong."
"It has effectively enhanced network security and integrated with other security tools to streamline operations."
"The company also uses Cisco ISE in other places. I have been told that ExtremeControl is easier to use than ISE. The other reason we prefer ExtremeControl is stability. That's why they chose it for this big hospital in Oslo."
"There is information on migrating most of the cloud system's features."
"I can know which end users are using which features."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Troubleshooting and multi-ISE can be challenging with the solution."
"In the next release, I would want to see this kind of solution in the cloud as opposed to on prem because when enhancements are made to the software, if it's in the cloud, it's overnight. I mean you're not going to have to respin the servers that the license sits on, it's all microservices kinds of things in the cloud. That would be my recommendation. If I'm a customer, that's what I'm looking at - for cloud based software subscriptions."
"Migration could be better. Right now, we back up with the new version, and it requires a lot of licensing and other things. Whenever we choose a product, it's very difficult because we have to meet the requirements of each feature. There is no standard feature, so the best system that we bought may not fit the solution. We have to look at every feature that the customer uses. If you compare it with other products like Aruba, it's not the same. With Cisco, I have to read all about the features on this version and the licensing required for the product. In Aruba, that thing is covered when you get one license because it covers almost everything. It could also be more scalable."
"I'm working from China currently and the only real issue is that, within the country, there's some concern around Cisco and its ability to offer the solution for the long term. As the United States has banned the Huawei version in their country, we feel there may be retaliation in ours and Cisco will get banned as a countermeasure from the government. The future of Cisco in China is in question. Our local partners are worried about the situation."
"Documentation is probably the worst part of the software."
"We do tend to run into a lot of issues with ISE when it comes to bugs."
"Third-party integration is important, as well as the continuous adaptation feature which is the AIOps. It would be helpful to include the AIOps."
"If you have someone taking care of it, it can be quite easy to manage the solution. Otherwise, if you don't look after it and take care of it day-to-day, then it will become more complex to run."
"I'd like to have access to more information on the traffic passing through."
"One improvement could be better clarification, namely that the system only works optimally with all components purchased together."
"The installation is easy, it can take between five minutes to four hours depending on the complexity of the environment. The speed of the installation could improve for more complex environments."
"There isn't enough development for the on-premises controller."
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 ExtremeControl is ranked 14th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 5 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while ExtremeControl is rated 7.2. 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 ExtremeControl writes "Has a simple setup process, but it could be affordable ". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM), whereas ExtremeControl is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout Platform. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. ExtremeControl 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.