We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Sophos 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."Member Access Control and the ability to integrate all Cisco wireless, Cisco networking, switches, routers, and firewalls."
"Cisco ISE is a comprehensive solution that allows you to control access to network resources granularly based on policies."
"The user experience of the solution is great. It's a very transparent system."
"The best feature of the Cisco ISE platform is that it is compatible with Microsoft products."
"The WiFi portal in Cisco ISE is very useful for WiFi customers."
"The ability to allow or deny hosts onto the network is valuable. It provides great security to the network environment."
"The return on investment we have seen is related to time in terms of troubleshooting. The logs, such as the security logs, inform us of the issues that people have had. ISE has been very instrumental in helping isolate those issues. We've seen a lot of cost savings because we don't have to pay an IT person to waste time doing something that should be instantaneous."
"The solution is great for establishing trust for every access request no matter where it comes from."
"What Sophos has done is integrate almost the entire OSI layer infrastructure. It gives me visibility across my infrastructure. It gives me visibility into all the mobile devices that are on my network and into the security I have on those mobile devices."
"The user interface makes it easy to configure and use."
"The most valuable features of Sophos Network Access Control are the quick response times to threats and reliable security."
"Web protection, URL filtering, and application filtering are the most valuable features of Sophos Network Access Control."
"Sophos' technical support is great, very fast and responsive, and they always know how to fix the problem."
"We have had interactions with the technical support team through the Xnet platform. It's good."
"I found all Sophos Network Access Control features valuable, but IP blocking is the most useful."
"The pricing is very reasonable and you can negotiate on the price."
"There are still some bugs in ISE that need to be worked out."
"In an upcoming release, it would be nice to have NAC already standard in the solution."
"The solution could be more secure."
"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."
"Third-party integration is important, as well as the continuous adaptation feature which is the AIOps. It would be helpful to include the AIOps."
"The Cisco wireless controller needs to add more than one physical port."
"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."
"They should improve the documentation. There tends to be a lot of old text, or the new things aren't always up to what's been released on the code, and sometimes the documentation is inconsistent."
"The user interface, in terms of managing the product, could be better."
"I would like more details on the incoming connection, like what is the download speed and how it fluctuates. If Sophos can give that information, it would be really good."
"The solution could increase the integration with other platforms or other systems. This would be very useful."
"The solution can improve the for applying policies. They can be complex depending don't the group they are applied to."
"An area that could be improved is the information about licensing, which is fairly confusing at present."
"The solution could offer more useful documentation."
"Sophos Network Access Control requires a lot of resources to work, which is an area for improvement. Pricing could also be improved because it's costly."
"It would be beneficial to consider some improvements regarding the dashboard."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Sophos Network Access Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while Sophos Network Access Control is ranked 8th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 18 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Sophos 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 Sophos Network Access Control writes "Reliable with good security capabilities and an easy setup". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Sophos Network Access Control is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, Ruckus Cloudpath and Twingate. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Sophos 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.