We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Impulse Point SafeConnect 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 solution is very reliable."
"The features that do work, work well, and we use it on a daily basis."
"It offers automatic profiling of phones and computers, enabling administrators to identify and categorize devices seamlessly."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"We have multiple metal devices from different places that use management, so we need to know who would be accessing all those devices and what changes are being done to those metal devices. With Cisco ISE we have visibility of all the changes happening on those devices."
"The solution cuts down on the repercussions of getting malware or ransomware."
"For my use cases, the in-depth troubleshooting into why a client can't connect or why they failed, is very valuable. I can go back to someone and say, 'Hey, it's not my network. It's their certificates or user error,' or something else."
"Improves switch account management."
"It is very easy to scale the product."
"The web interface needs improvement. The new web interface that they have is not as easy to manage and we find it to be very slow."
"Cisco ISE is very complex and not very easy to deploy."
"The opinion of my coworkers, and it's mine as well, is that the user interface could use some tender loving care. It seems counterintuitive sometimes. If you go to the logs, it's hard to figure out which one you need to look at."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly."
"There is room for improvement in CLI. Most things are done through the GUI, and there aren't many commands or troubleshooting options available compared to other Cisco products like switches and routers."
"I'm frustrated by the resource consumption and how many resources it needs to run. It takes a lot of RAM. It takes a lot of space and a lot of IO power. It's frustrating to do upgrades because it takes a long time."
"The templates could be better. When you have to do certs, especially with X.500 certs, it isn't very intuitive."
"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 solution would be much better if it offered self-service onboarding."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while Impulse Point SafeConnect is ranked 17th in Network Access Control (NAC). Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Impulse Point SafeConnect is rated 8.0. 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 Impulse Point SafeConnect writes "Easy to scale, enforces policies well, and has responsive technical support". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Impulse Point SafeConnect is most compared with Forescout Platform.
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.