We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Portnox CORE 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."The interconnection with the ecosystem and the ability to force rules all over the network are the most important features."
"One of the most important features is the authentication security for the individual connection to the network through their computer or laptop."
"There is good integration with third-party systems like antivirus patch management, MDM."
"The ability to allow or deny hosts onto the network is valuable. It provides great security to the network environment."
"Since migrating towards doing wired ports over ISE with 802.1X and MAB authentication, our organization's security risk has been better. We have been able to establish better layouts, so devices can move and we don't have to worry about where they need to go."
"I like the guest access feature, which has been important for us."
"The core point is that Cisco ISE is the same globally compared to FortiAuthenticator. Whether I deploy in China, the US, South Africa, or wherever, I'm can get all the capabilities. It allows me to directly integrate with 365, and from a communications point of view, that is a good capability."
"It does a good job of establishing trust for each access request, no matter the source. It's also very effective at helping with the distributed network and at securing access."
"It's a stable product."
"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility."
"For the information security team, the security level was improved because it helped to manage and prevent rogue devices from connecting to the corporate network. The reporting was granular, and reports we scheduled for delivery on Portnox were useful during investigations and audits, especially in cases where the IP address changed."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"It's agentless, and it's scalable."
"I am impressed with the solution's voucher capability and authentication. The tool is integrated with Active Direct storage."
"The minute people have issues on their network, we can see what is happening right away."
"Segmentation can be improved."
"An area that could be improved is the agent. The challenge now is that agent and most of the computers have changed. They could think about agent-less deployment."
"The solution is not so user-friendly."
"It would be nice if it could be configured easily by default."
"They could incorporate some AI features."
"I'd like to see the logging be a bit more robust in terms of what it has baked in. If I want to do any in-depth searching, I have to export all the logs to an external platform like Elastic or LogRhythm and then parse through them myself. It would be nice if I could find what I want, when I want it, on the platform itself."
"Some of the reporting could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in CLI. Most things are done through the GUI, and there aren't many commands or troubleshooting options available compared to other Cisco products like switches and routers."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"Portnox CORE can improve on support for unmanaged switches (or hubs) and other brands of network devices. These kinds of devices are still in use in organisations, especially SMEs who cannot afford to buy a managed switch."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"The price could be better."
"The licensing is based on a per-port price, even when you are not using all of the ports, and this is something that could be improved."
"The integration between Portnox CORE and Portnox CLEAR can be better. These are two different systems, and there is no unique console for both devices. Portnox CORE is agentless, whereas Portnox CLEAR is not agentless."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
"Now, the way security is viewed, maybe including something like AI, to automate some of the things that are required to be done would be great."
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 Portnox CORE is ranked 11th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 14 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Portnox CORE is rated 8.2. 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 Portnox CORE writes "Simple UI, easy deployment but slow authentication times for devices". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and ExtremeControl, whereas Portnox CORE is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, Portnox Clear and Sophos Network Access Control. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Portnox CORE 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.