We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) 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."I like the automation of the collection of information."
"The most valuable feature is the provisioning of the device so as to ensure that they are compliant with the security policy that we need to have."
"The most valuable features are the ability to retrieve information about Active Directory user names, viewing the log files to see which MAC address tried to connect with the created SSIDs, portal designing for your company, hotspot tools, and creating network rules for WiFi access."
"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."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"The integration with Active Directory is the most valuable feature for us."
"It's flexible and stable. It's been good as a standard environment to run."
"The most valuable feature is the virtual IP creation. It's our most frequently used feature."
"The load balancing features are valuable."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"F5 BIG-IP APM is relatively easy to use."
"Stickiness is the most valuable feature of the product."
"The tool is reliable and easy to configure."
"This is a product that is easy to install and integrate, and it is simple to use."
"The portal access was very good."
"The primary issue is the slowness of the application and the web interface. We have multiple admin nodes and app nodes. So when I need to get some information about a particular user, the GUI would take ten to fifteen seconds in loading when we need to know right away."
"The initial setup process is complex since there are so many big components."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing and licensing structure are not ideal for customers."
"Cisco ISE could be simplified somewhat. I would also prefer certificate-based authentication over confirmation-based authentication for all the processes. It's possible for us to do a workaround, but the process needs to be simplified."
"The installation is not straightforward, it took us approximately one month."
"It is too complex. It should be easy to use. We are not such a big team. We only have three engineers to work with this, and we don't use all of the functionality of the product. Its range of functionality is too wide for us, and this is the reason why we are thinking of switching to a more simple product. We have shortlisted a Microsoft solution. We have a big footprint for Microsoft products, especially in security. As a global strategy, we try to leverage to the maximum what is possible around Microsoft."
"The operational deployment is not great."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The solution’s GUI looks very old."
"F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager has room for improvement in integration with other products."
"The technical support’s response time must be improved."
"In my opinion, the GUI side needs some improvement based on my usage. Sometimes, it doesn't work as efficiently as the CLI side."
"We do not have knowledgeable support teams locally."
"F5 BIG-IP APM disconnects when you leave it for long enough, but that is natural for IT solutions to do. That's a little bit frustrating."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 136 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is ranked 7th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 13 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is rated 8.2. 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 F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) writes " Facilitates packet inspection, modification, and offloading and offers visibility and troubleshooting capabilities, allowing for pre-production server testing". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and ExtremeControl, whereas F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is most compared with Citrix Gateway, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ivanti Connect Secure, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services and Microsoft Entra ID. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) 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.