We compared Cisco Identity Services Engine and Fortinet FortiNA (ISE)C based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Cisco ISE seems to be the slightly superior solution because of its expansive integration capabilities.
"We were originally a Cisco shop and Cisco ISE integrated well with our other Cisco switches and networks."
"The initial setup was easy. It took around one month. We did the installation part within half an hour to two hours but we found a couple of issues so we raised a case and once everything was resolved it was a month in total."
"After the product was installed, no one could access the secure connection network. In order for any laptop or any endpoint device to attach to my network, it needs to be authorized or be certified to be connected."
"[One of the most valuable features] is just the ease of use. It's pretty simple to set up certs that we can add to our clients to make sure that they connect properly, [as is] whitelisting Mac addresses."
"In terms of features, I think they've done a lot of improvement on the graphical user interface — it looks really good right now."
"The feature that I found most valuable is profiling. We use that to profile certain types of devices, and then depending on the manufacturer, drop them into the appropriate VLAN without us having to go in and manually add the devices."
"It's scalable."
"It has all of the features available, in fact, more than what you need."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to protect devices connected to network service."
"The device fingerprinting feature allowed for easy creation and enforcement of access policies."
"Fortinet FortiNAC is both scalable and stable."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiNAC is its integration with all other Fortinet solutions."
"It's easy to connect to a VPN without any hassles."
"With FortiNAC, we don't need to configure the mass client site or access points. For example, we don't need to configure the switching site for a client's site. With Persistent Agent, it makes it much easier."
"The features are more expandable."
"It effectively addresses issues arising from endpoint connections to the network, contributing to an enhanced overall security solution for our clients."
"When I work with customers to do my knowledge transfer, they're really overwhelmed with the navigation of the product and the number of things you can do with it. From a user interface standpoint, Cisco could focus on making certain tasks a bit more guided and easier for customers to walk through. That is, a user-friendly interface and streamlined workflows would be great."
"Cisco ISE requires a lot of time-consuming administration."
"If I was going to improve anything, it would be the ease of migration. It's really difficult at the moment if you're looking to upgrade ISE 2.1 and you want to go to ISE 3.1 or 3.2, that whole upgrade path and, particularly, the licensing is quite a minefield to sort out."
"The initial setup was a little bit complex. It's not that simple because it requires a lot of prerequisites for the solution to get a hold on."
"Sometimes, there are instances when Cisco ISE simply fails to function without any apparent reason, and regardless of the investigation we undertake, the logs indicate that everything is functioning properly, making it somewhat inexplicable."
"Its user interface could be better. It's not bad. They've just redesigned the whole user interface. It's not terribly difficult. The drop-down menus are easy to use. However, when you're looking for some things in the user interface, it takes a minute to find where you were prior."
"Since we have started, we struggled a lot to implement this solution into our network, and we opened a case a couple of times. Up until this point, nothing else needs to be improved with this product."
"The support could be faster and the pricing could be reduced."
"Fortinet FortiNAC's documentation should be improved because there's not much debugging or troubleshooting documentation for the Fortinet FortiNAC."
"The user interface and the product's intuitiveness could be improved."
"Keeping the hard disk on the one series will be easier for the distributor and will keep the prices lower for the customer."
"They need to change or upgrade the technology in the product."
"Classifications and visibility need to be improved a lot. They have to start work on being agentless. Agentless means they need to have strong integration with Windows."
"Fortinet FortiNAC's device compatibility could be improved, particularly for VoIP devices."
"The deployment of Fortinet FortiNAC could be better. When we are deploying the solution we have some level of dependencies with other vendors for their connection to Fortinet FortiNAC. Without these dependencies, it would be better."
"The interface works fine, but it could be better."
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 Fortinet FortiNAC is ranked 4th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 43 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiNAC is rated 7.6. 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 Fortinet FortiNAC writes "I like the solution's native integration with other devices from the same vendor". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security, whereas Fortinet FortiNAC is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, Fortinet FortiClient and Portnox CORE. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Fortinet FortiNAC 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.