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.
"The valuable feature of the solution lies in its integration capabilities with other applications."
"Being able to authenticate wired users through 802.1X is valuable as it enhances our security."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"Cisco ISE's profiling and posturing features ensure that all devices are compliant with regulatory authorities."
"It's flexible and stable. It's been good as a standard environment to run."
"RADIUS is the best feature because it supplies authentication to our entire campus."
"The interconnection with the ecosystem and the ability to force rules all over the network are the most important features."
"For me, the TACACS feature is the most valuable. I have also used Cisco ISE with LDAP, not with Active Directory. That works for me because I prefer LDAP versus Active Directory."
"The user management has been very easy for the most part."
"The most valuable feature of the Forescout Platform is the large capacity it can handle. Additionally, the interface of the platform is good."
"Forescout Platform's most valuable features are that it is very granular. We are able to cull out a lot of information about our particular device or endpoint. The configuration and the visibility are very seamless. Overall the solution is very easy to handle and it's very comprehensive."
"Its feature that I have found most valuable is that it is very granular. You can configure granular controls just as you want those policies to be implemented. It gives you that flexibility to go granular in how you want your controls to be implemented. That's something I like about it."
"The most valuable features are remote access and administration scripts."
"The plugins are very robust -- the ability scanner, patch management system, and SQL integrator."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment, which does not require the use of an agent."
"We really like that we get full visibility of devices in the local network."
"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 pricing is fair."
"Profiling is a really good feature. However, it sometimes is a challenge for customers when there are issues with the remediation part. I would add a built-in remediation solution. That would be a very nice feature."
"Whenever we see the authentication logs, we can't see what device we're logging into... We can see who logged in, but we can't see the IP address of the device... I'm sure that's available. We just haven't figured out how to properly deploy it."
"A main issue is that the upgrade process, over time, is extraordinarily fragile. Repeatedly, over the past several years, when we've tried to upgrade our Cisco ISE implementation, the upgrade has broken it. Ultimately, we have then had to rebuild it because we need it."
"Cisco ISE is complex. The deployment and design of networks with it is so complex. If it could change it would be better."
"The customer server was great but it would have been better for me if they had support in other languages such as Spanish."
"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."
"Two things can be improved in the Forescout Platform. First of all, the support for some certain proprietary protocols from other vendors, but they are very widely used. If the TechEx from Cisco, was added to Forescout, then it will be a full solution for me."
"Forescout Platform's technical support is slow to respond and could be more knowledgeable."
"Other solutions have TACACS+, but Forescout does not. In the next release, I would like to see Forescout have accounting."
"When we automate an email to send to a user, sometimes it gets blocked, but that has nothing to do with Forescout. It depends on the mail gateway that we use or integrate with."
"We have found that the agent-based authentication, available within this solution could be improved."
"It does not support the TACACS+ protocol."
"Forescout Platform isn't flexible with connections to devices like printers and forces you to re-enter details like the MAC address after any breakdowns."
"The licensing costs are quite high. With the amount of hardware we have, we need too many licenses to make the product effective and it's ultimately just too costly."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews while Forescout Platform is ranked 4th 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.