We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Sophos Network Access Control based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with StealthWatch and DNA as one fabric."
"The most valuable feature is the ASDM - the user interface makes it very easy to configure the firewall."
"The most valuable features are the NAC and the bundles that are available with Cisco ISE, such as Cisco ACS being integrated."
"So far, we have had no issues with the stability."
"It does what it's supposed to. We use a certificate-based authentication method for corporate-managed devices. That means when a user walks in with their managed laptop and plugs it into the network, it chats with Cisco ISE in the background, allows it on the network, and away they go."
"Cisco ISE's integration with other external identity servers like Duende is very simple and easy."
"Typically, the installation is pretty simple."
"Web protection, URL filtering, and application filtering are the most valuable features of Sophos Network Access Control."
"There is really good visibility for the appliance."
"The scalability of the system and the performance of the system and the solution's most valuable features."
"We have had interactions with the technical support team through the Xnet platform. It's good."
"The pricing is very reasonable and you can negotiate on the price."
"The most valuable features of Sophos Network Access Control are the quick response times to threats and reliable security."
"Sophos has helped us to save time and money and to better manage web activities. It has also helped us to reduce misuse of the network and restrict hacking attempts."
"I am very satisfied with this solution overall. All of the features that we use have been working successfully."
"It would be ideal if Cisco could provide some short training videos or documentation to customers to help them understand how to use the product."
"Third-party integration is important, as well as the continuous adaptation feature which is the AIOps. It would be helpful to include the AIOps."
"Cisco ISE can become quite complex, especially with policy sets, the entire authentication process, and everything involved."
"I'm working from China currently and the only real issue is that, within the country, there's some concern around Cisco and its ability to offer the solution for the long term. As the United States has banned the Huawei version in their country, we feel there may be retaliation in ours and Cisco will get banned as a countermeasure from the government. The future of Cisco in China is in question. Our local partners are worried about the situation."
"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."
"Troubleshooting and multi-ISE can be challenging with the solution."
"I would like to see integration with other vendors, and the RADIUS integration needs to be improved a little bit."
"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."
"The solution can improve the for applying policies. They can be complex depending don't the group they are applied to."
"In order to provide better management, it would be ideal with they offered better plugins for their firewall."
"An area that could be improved is the information about licensing, which is fairly confusing at present."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"I would like more details on the incoming connection, like what is the download speed and how it fluctuates. If Sophos can give that information, it would be really good."
"I would like to see mobile administration capabilities in the next release so that we can administer the device from a mobile device."
"The interface on the cloud could be a bit better - just to give more performance on it."
"Sophos Network Access Control requires a lot of resources to work, which is an area for improvement. Pricing could also be improved because it's costly."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Sophos Network Access Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while Sophos Network Access Control is ranked 8th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 18 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Sophos Network Access Control 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 Sophos Network Access Control writes "Reliable with good security capabilities and an easy setup". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Sophos Network Access Control is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and Ruckus Cloudpath. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Sophos Network Access Control 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.