We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE and Forescout Platform based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Cisco is a worldwide, well-known, trusted, and respected branded product, and despite its known complexities, Cisco ISE pushes just ahead of Forescout Platform. Forescout Platform has just a few buggy issues and is lacking in some reporting structure, which makes Cisco ISE an easier choice.
"It is stable and easy to use."
"The initial setup was easy. It took around one month. We did the installation part within half an hour to two hours but we found a couple of issues so we raised a case and once everything was resolved it was a month in total."
"For my use cases, the in-depth troubleshooting into why a client can't connect or why they failed, is very valuable. I can go back to someone and say, 'Hey, it's not my network. It's their certificates or user error,' or something else."
"I like the logging feature."
"I like the guest access feature, which has been important for us."
"I like that Cisco ISE is easy to use."
"In terms of scalability, you need to factor in your licenses. With a virtual platform, the scalability is more than sufficient. We have over one thousand users."
"Being able to authenticate wired users through 802.1X is valuable as it enhances our security."
"The most valuable features of ForeScout is the fact that it can do network access control either with 802.1x or without 802.1x."
"The 802.1X compliance authentication feature of this solution is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment, which does not require the use of an agent."
"The solution's implementation and operation are very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the blocking of USB devices."
"Forescout Platform's best feature is plug-in integration."
"The most valuable features of the Forescout Platform are NAC for sharing, Network Access Control, and port sharing of the devices."
"The visibility is the main benefit. We now know how many devices are connected, what the use for each device is and what kind of devices we have in our environment."
"The solution configuration is complicated for setting the infrastructure. They have improved over the years but there is still a lot of room to improve. When comparing the simplicity to other vendors, such as Fortinet and Aruba they are behind."
"I would definitely improve the deployment and maybe a little bit of the support. Our first exposure to ISE had a lot of issues."
"Segmentation can be improved."
"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'm frustrated by the resource consumption and how many resources it needs to run. It takes a lot of RAM. It takes a lot of space and a lot of IO power. It's frustrating to do upgrades because it takes a long time."
"I think some areas where ISE could be better are perhaps in the number of integrations that they offer from a virtual standpoint, as well as having a better and more comprehensive pathway for the customer to go from a physical environment to a virtual one."
"The solution can lag somewhat as we have a large database."
"Cisco ISE's performance could be better, faster, and more robust."
"Forescout Platform needs to improve how the device works in preventing rogue servers."
"The cost is too high."
"The solution does have a bit of complexity, and there's some complexity in the deployment. Users need to be trained before undertaking an initial setup."
"The solution's customer support is bad and should be improved."
"The solution could always improve by adding more features to make it more robust."
"Other solutions have TACACS+, but Forescout does not. In the next release, I would like to see Forescout have accounting."
"Forescout Platform could improve the integration or compatibility with other solutions, such as Chinese-made solutions. They do not have any integration with S33 which is a switch. They do not have good integration with new solutions in the market. They do integrate well with Rocket, Cisco, Juniper, and quite a few more but they could expand the integration."
"Forescout Platform sometimes returns false positives, so there's some fine-tuning to be done there."
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 Forescout Platform is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Forescout Platform is rated 8.4. 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 Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security, whereas Forescout Platform is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks, Armis and Tenable Security Center. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Forescout Platform 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.