We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."We found all the features of the product to be valuable."
"SGTs are valuable because they make it easy to enforce policies, instead of pushing them across all the other platforms."
"It has allowed us to pull in multiple authentication databases, then centralize them into a captive portal system."
"The posture assessment is a valuable feature because of the ability to do assessments on the clients before they connect to the network."
"The user experience of the solution is great. It's a very transparent system."
"The policy sets give us more granular groups for end-user 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."
"Our clients like Cisco ISE because they already use various Cisco solutions. It's easy for them to use this solution because they have an engineer with Cisco certifications."
"The most valuable feature is the security, in particular, the One Time Password support."
"With the tool in place, you need to hire fewer people to provide access, and you have control over your processes."
"RSA Identity Governance and lifecycles are good for the access certification and auditing sections."
"The data collection is excellent and easy to do. It does not require a lot of configuration nor does it require rules to be written like other competitors do."
"Roles, connectors for provisioning and re-accreditation or reviews help greatly to govern user access."
"The web UI should be made similar to the one in DNAC."
"The interface could be more user-friendly and the ability to apply rules to MAC addresses, for example, if I wanted to allow a certain MAC address access at a particular time I cannot make this adjustment."
"The Guest Network verification needs to add a QR code option."
"The pricing is fair."
"I believe that Cisco can improve the way its policies are built because it's a little complex."
"The solution configuration is complicated for setting the infrastructure. They have improved over the years but there is still a lot of room to improve. When comparing the simplicity to other vendors, such as Fortinet and Aruba they are behind."
"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."
"When I work with customers to do my knowledge transfer, they're really overwhelmed with the navigation of the product and the number of things you can do with it. From a user interface standpoint, Cisco could focus on making certain tasks a bit more guided and easier for customers to walk through. That is, a user-friendly interface and streamlined workflows would be great."
"RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle could improve out-of-the-box customization."
"This product is missing a lot of features which other competitors are providing. One of the key features that are missing right now is risk scoring. Additionally, there is not much scope for customization - everything is hard-coded and predefined, so it does not allow the developers to make many modifications."
"There are scalability issues. This product does not scale very well. It is not a good product for load balancing / active–active architecture."
"Every connector that you have in the product needs to be custom-built, so there are not a lot of standard connectors available in the product, because of which there are a lot of hidden consultancy costs."
"The user interface and workflow need improvement, and more connectors would help."
"Technical support in Pakistan can be improved."
"If you use the appliance version then it won't handle a huge database volume."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is ranked 23rd in Identity Management (IM) with 9 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is rated 6.8. 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 RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle writes "Lacking customization, poor support, but useful auditing". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is most compared with SailPoint Identity Security Cloud, One Identity Manager and Saviynt.
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.