We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Forescout and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."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."
"When you push out the policy, it is able to populate the entire network at one time."
"One of the most important features is the authentication security for the individual connection to the network through their computer or laptop."
"It's scalable."
"The posture assessment is a valuable feature because of the ability to do assessments on the clients before they connect to the network."
"The most valuable thing in ISE is the adoption of EAP deep that came in [version] 2.7, so we can do authentication based on user and machine certificates in one authentication."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"I would rate the price eight out of 10, with 10 as the best value for money."
"Lifecycle management, governance and documentation."
More IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence Pros →
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"Cisco ISE is complex. The deployment and design of networks with it is so complex. If it could change it would be better."
"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."
"The initial setup process is complex since there are so many big components."
"The customer server was great but it would have been better for me if they had support in other languages such as Spanish."
"Adding new devices was a little cumbersome. I haven't done it that many times, but I remember that adding new devices to the authentication piece of it was a little cumbersome. The way I was shown to do it, I thought it was odd because we had to go into the active device, copy the file down, export it, make some changes to it, and then reimport it as opposed to being able to click it and having a template to fill out."
"It does a good job of establishing trust for every access request. We have had a little bit of a challenge with profiling, but we are probably about 80% there."
"Cisco ISE is very complex and not very easy to deploy."
"The solution is a bit pricey for some regions."
"Self service center is not always easy to understand."
More IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence Cons →
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 136 reviews while IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence is ranked 11th in User Provisioning Software with 2 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence 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 IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence writes "We use the solution to ensure organizations conform to industry base certifications and best practices". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Microsoft Identity Manager, Saviynt and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager.
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.