We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Cisco Secure Workload based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cisco Security Portfolio solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the ASDM - the user interface makes it very easy to configure the firewall."
"The best feature of the Cisco ISE platform is that it is compatible with Microsoft products."
"In terms of features, I think they've done a lot of improvement on the graphical user interface — it looks really good right now."
"They provide you multiple ways to achieve security, not only on-prem, but also when you have remote and guest workers. Especially post-pandemic, a lot of our customers have remote workers. So, it has been really helpful."
"It does a good job of establishing trust for each access request, no matter the source. It's also very effective at helping with the distributed network and at securing access."
"I've had no issues with scalability. I started using it on two campuses, and now I'm using it across the country and scaling it across subsidiaries in other countries."
"It's scalable."
"It is scalable because we use a network load balancer at the front of the PSN. It can be extended as we want to multiply. It's scalable to our environment. We have around 8,000 users and we are planning to expand it."
"A complete and powerful micro-segmentation solution."
"The product offers great visibility into the network so we can enforce security measures."
"The most valuable feature is micro-segmentation, which is the most important with respect to visibility."
"The product provides multiple-device integration."
"The solution offers 100% telemetry coverage. The telemetry you collect is not sampled, it's not intermittent. It's complete. You see everything in it, including full visibility of all activities on your endpoints and in your network."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is security."
"Instead of proving that all the access control lists are in place and all the EPGs are correct, we can just point the auditor to a dashboard and point out that there aren't any escaped conversations. It saves an enormous, enormous amount of time."
"By using Tetration insight, we are able to get the latency on our level accounts and we can determine whatever the issue is with the application latency itself."
"On the network services devices, when you click on filter, the filter comes up. However, when I type in a search and I want to click on something it defaults back to the main page. I keep having an issue with that, and I'm not doing anything wrong."
"I would like to see them simplify the dashboard. It's very configurable, but, at the same time, it's not easy to maneuver through it. They should "Merakify" it."
"In a future release, I would like to see network access control. That is something that customers seem to be looking for."
"There should be more visibility into TrustSec policy actions. When TrustSec blocks something or makes any kind of changes to the network, we don't always see that. We have to log into the switch itself, or we have to get some type of Syslog parsing to do that."
"There can be a little bit more integration between the controller management and ISE. There are two dashboards, you have the controller dashboards, and you have the ISE dashboard it would is a way to maybe integrate that into one. That would be great. It's not that bad. It would be easier if it could be combined into one dashboard."
"It is a good product, but in order to use all of the functions of the product, you must have a good understanding of the product. You must know how to use and manage it. It is a little bit complicated to configure and manage. It must be simplified to make it easy to manage for end users. In the initial stage, we found ISE complicated for end users. It was not easy to manage it or to write authentication and authorization protocol. They must improve its management and make it easy for end users. The monitoring and reporting capabilities can be improved because end users want to quickly see what is happening in their network. There were some restrictions in working with other vendors. It should also have a better and easy integration with other vendors."
"The Guest Network verification needs to add a QR code option."
"Troubleshooting and multi-ISE can be challenging with the solution."
"The emailed notifications are either hard to find or they are not available. Search capabilities can be improved."
"There was a controversy when Cisco reduced the amount of data they kept, and the solution became quite cost-intensive, which made its adoption challenging….Although they have modified it now, I preferred the previous version, and I wish all the functionality were back under the same product."
"It has an uninviting interface."
"The product must be integrated with the cloud."
"The multi-tenancy, redundancy, backup and restore functionalities, as well as the monitoring aspects of the solution, need improvement. The solution offers virtually no enterprise-grade possibility for monitoring."
"There is some overlap between Cisco Tetration and AppDynamics and I need to have a single pane of glass, rather than have to jump between different tools."
"The integration could be better, especially with different types of solutions."
"It is highly scalable, but there is a limitation that it is only available on Cisco devices."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Cisco Security Portfolio with 138 reviews while Cisco Secure Workload is ranked 12th in Cisco Security Portfolio with 13 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Cisco Secure Workload 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 Cisco Secure Workload writes "A solution that provides good technical support but its high cost makes it challenging for users to adopt it". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Cisco Secure Workload is most compared with Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Illumio, VMware NSX, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Cisco Secure Workload report.
See our list of best Cisco Security Portfolio vendors.
We monitor all Cisco Security Portfolio 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.
