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 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."
"I like the guest access feature, which has been important for us."
"The policy sets give us more granular groups for end-user access."
"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 most valuable feature is the flexibility of the policy sets."
"The most valuable feature is AnyConnect Posture because it scans all the programs on the workstation and checks if the antivirus is up to date, as well as the cryptographic keys on our SSD."
"At the moment, ISE seems to integrate very well with a number of other technologies."
"It's scalable."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"This is a self-sufficient network monitoring and security product that saves time and employee resources."
"Previous to the deployment we didn't have complete visibility of all the endpoints, all the devices that are connected to the network. But with the deployment of portnox, we could see all the devices and where they're connecting. We can equally segregate and apply different rules, policies to each location that we didn't monitor specifically."
"The technical support is top-notch."
"The most important feature is that this solution is agentless. So, you don't have to install any agents on endpoints."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"It's a stable product."
"Cisco ISE is complex. The deployment and design of networks with it is so complex. If it could change it would be better."
"Troubleshooting and multi-ISE can be challenging with the solution."
"There should be an easier way to do the upgrades. There are a lot of steps to get to the next version from the previous version which ends up being a bit of the headache with the upgrade."
"The licensing documentation needs to be better."
"There is room for improvement in its ability to allow end users to self-enroll their devices. Instead, you should be able to assign that permission by AD group, which is currently not available."
"We face many bugs."
"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."
"Compatibility and integration with other vendors is what needs to be improved in Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine)."
"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."
"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."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"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 might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"It could be a little cheaper."
"The product should consider more integration with vendors like Huawei. It should also improve visibility. The solution should offer a partner portal that can provide customers training on the in and out of the solution."
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 10th 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.