We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and One Identity Active Roles 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)."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 most valuable feature is the flexibility of the policy sets."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with StealthWatch and DNA as one fabric."
"The most important feature for us is visibility in terms of user connections. It's the ability to see what devices are online for a particular user that helps a lot with our troubleshooting."
"They have recently made a lot of improvements. My clients don't have much to complain about."
"The solution is great for establishing trust for every access request no matter where it comes from."
"The WiFi portal in Cisco ISE is very useful for WiFi customers."
"The ability to integrate our Cisco AnyConnect connections to the active directory has been great."
"The AD and AAD management features of this solution are really good... They offer added value by showing more fields such as password age and the statuses of some things that we normally wouldn't see."
"The solution is stable."
"In comparison to native Active Directory tools, using Active Roles for delegation is so much better. It uses an access template and that makes it easy to see who can access what. In fact, you can do that for many objects as well."
"The biggest thing for us is Active Roles saves a lot of man-hours in keeping groups up-to-date manually or trying to write some sort of script that you have to run, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Instead of when every time somebody joins a department, then somebody has to remember to put in a request to add "meet user Joe" to this group, the solution does it automatically for us. Therefore, it saves our business and IT staff time because they do not have to process requests since Active Role can do it for them."
"Instead of deleting accounts, we like the deprovision option so that we can reverse any accidental deletions. It also gives a higher level of quality control in terms of enforcing any number of variables, such as making sure that an account has a description entered before the account can be created. We can backtrack and know the history of it that way."
"Another good feature is the change history. It's centralized in a single place and allows us to manage people's Active Directory domains from a central location. We can also drill down into individual objects in a troubleshooting or even an auditing situation. We can show evidence to auditors by drilling down into the individual history. It gives you all the history of what happened around an individual object. That is something that would be almost impossible to do in Active Directory, or extremely complicated."
"Having a tool to manage all changes to AD from a single pane of glass is awesome."
"It's valuable to us in that it resembles the native tools that most people have grown accustomed to... Active Roles resembles traditional tools, such as from Microsoft. That is really good because it eases the way people interact with the tool."
"Documentation is probably the worst part of the software."
"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 UI and UX could be more seamless and easier to use."
"In an upcoming release, it would be nice to have NAC already standard in the solution."
"In the next release, I would want to see this kind of solution in the cloud as opposed to on prem because when enhancements are made to the software, if it's in the cloud, it's overnight. I mean you're not going to have to respin the servers that the license sits on, it's all microservices kinds of things in the cloud. That would be my recommendation. If I'm a customer, that's what I'm looking at - for cloud based software subscriptions."
"They should improve the upgrades. It's not easy to upgrade the solution."
"We face many bugs."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly."
"The third area for improvement, which is the weakest portion of ARS, is the workflow engine, which was introduced a few years ago. It's slow and not very intuitive to use, so I would like to see improvement there."
"The initial setup was quite easy, but it was time-consuming. It took about three months."
"Most of the time it just works."
"It also has workflows and those are really powerful, but there are no built-in workflows. When it comes to them, it's empty. I would personally love for it to come with ten, 15, or 20 workflows where each achieves a certain task... I could just look at how each is done, clone them, copy them, modify them the way I want them, and be good to go. Right now we have to invent things from scratch."
"The user and group management in Azure AD could be better. Our focus these days is dynamic sharing with several on-prem Microsoft applications like SharePoint."
"In terms of improvement, it could be made even more user-friendly for administrators when they need to create new workflows and rule sets."
"When doing a workflow, we would like a bit better feedback on the screen, as we're trying to get it to work. For example, there is a "Find" function that you need set up in a workflow to do some of the automation. It is not the easiest to get a result from those finds when you're trying to do that. In the MMC, they have a couple different types of workflows. In this particular case, we use their workflow functionality to find all of X within the environment, then if you find it, do X, Y, and Z. You can have multiple steps. When you do that search function within that workflow, it's really hard to find out, "Is my search working?" It would be nice if there was some feedback on the screen so you could see if your search is working properly within the workflow."
"Another issue we have with the product is that we run a lot of custom tasks. You have to program them to run on one particular host and there's no automatic failover to a second host. If that host is down when a task is supposed to run, it has to wait until the next time it runs when that host is up."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 136 reviews while One Identity Active Roles is ranked 5th in User Provisioning Software with 17 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while One Identity Active Roles is rated 8.6. 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 One Identity Active Roles writes "Single interface and workflows simplify AD and Azure AD management efficiency and security". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas One Identity Active Roles is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, ManageEngine ADManager Plus, SailPoint IdentityIQ, One Identity Manager and Netwrix Auditor.
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.