We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Tenable Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."A lot of customers use a third party to manage their guest Wi-Fi. Cisco ISE presents the ability to bring that in-house so that customers can have full control over it, change the branding, and get extra telemetry from it and the user data. It works really well for our customers."
"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."
"The way the ISE works is you can get into defining. Let's say, in my case, I've got a Windows laptop and I've got an Apple product and those have unique identifiers, unique back addresses. It would say that this in my profile so I could get to those apps with either device, 24/seven. That's how granular the ISE or these NAC Solutions can get."
"The interconnection with the ecosystem and the ability to force rules all over the network are the most important features."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with StealthWatch and DNA as one fabric."
"I like the automation of the collection of information."
"Cisco ISE now competes with any other product in the space because of its centralized and unified highly secure access control with ISE."
"SGTs are valuable because they make it easy to enforce policies, instead of pushing them across all the other platforms."
"The most valuable features of Tenable SC are the reports and the dashboards."
"Tenable SC's most valuable features are the low number of false positives and the strong capability of providing prioritization for the vulnerabilities detected."
"The predictive prioritization features are pretty good. They do a lot of research and we trust the research that they do internally. They have knowledge of what's going on with many companies, where we only get a view into what's going on here. So the ability to get best practices out of them as part of this solution, is valuable to us."
"It is a very good and user-friendly product."
"Tenable.sc is user-friendly."
"The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs."
"Tenable.sc's best features are the availability model, accident management, and scoring."
"Support is knowledgeable."
"I don't like the fact that we can see the logs only for 24 hours. Maybe that happens because of the way we set it up."
"The area where things could be improved is education. It's complicated to deploy initially because you have to know what you're getting into."
"I would like to see integration with other vendors, and the RADIUS integration needs to be improved a little bit."
"I would like to see the product simplified more, especially with the configuration."
"We do tend to run into a lot of issues with ISE when it comes to bugs."
"Cisco ISE's real-time data analytics for database logging could be improved."
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"The pricing and licensing structure are not ideal for customers."
"The tool's initial configuration is not so easy."
"Certain aspects require manual effort, such as exporting and analyzing data for our dashboards. The built-in components of the Tenable solution are somewhat clumsy that require external tools. So, this is an area of improvement."
"The product should provide risk-based vulnerability management."
"The reporting side can be improved. The dashboards are nice, but exporting things out for reports for management was a little tough."
"There is not much room for improvement. However, there should be a guide that describes the step-by-step procedures for doing tasks. Otherwise, training is required from a senior guy to a junior guy."
"It's good at creating information, it's good creating dashboards, it's good at creating reports, but if you want to take that reporting metadata and put it into another tool, that is a little bit lacking."
"The solution is expensive."
"Tenable has some problems with agents going offline during scanning and lag between agents and the security center."
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 Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Tenable Security Center 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 Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Nessus and Horizon3.ai.
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.