We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The two solutions received similar ratings in all categories. However, users recognize Cisco as a worldwide, well-known, and trusted brand and they like its flexibility.
"With NAC, the profiling feature is valuable. We're able to see what we have out there in the network and dynamically assign policies to it. We can then use that to enforce TrustSec policy or anything else with NAC."
"The product is useful for device administration."
"There are a lot of integrations available with multiple vendors. This has made the solution easier to work with."
"The features that do work, work well, and we use it on a daily basis."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility of the policy sets."
"Easy to use and provides good support"
"The best feature of the Cisco ISE platform is that it is compatible with Microsoft products."
"The access policies, and all of the policies in Cisco ISE, are important to us."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the vault. I am satisfied with the interface and the documentation."
"It is a single tool that isolates possible kinds of malware. You get lateral movement blocking and auditing information, e.g., you know who is doing what. You are getting protections from the service as well as a useful environment. All your admins can easily go in and out of your company while accessing your servers in a secure way, even if they are working abroad."
"CyberArk has helped us to identify, store, protect, and monitor the usage of privileged accounts."
"All the features of CyberArk are useful for me, but the biggest one is that CyberArk has logs for all the features. That is important when there is a problem. You know where to look and you have the information. In cyber security, the most important aspect is information."
"Performance-wise, it is excellent."
"Ensures accounts are managed according to corporate policies."
"The biggest feature is the security of the overall solution. It's very secure. The vaulting technology and the number of security layers involved in the vault, where privileged accounts are actually stored, is the heart of the solution."
"The ability to develop and deploy applications with no stored secrets is very valuable."
"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."
"Deploying to a machine, as opposed to a dedicated appliance, can be a bit difficult."
"In a future release, I would like to see network access control. That is something that customers seem to be looking for."
"The solution can lag somewhat as we have a large database."
"A lot of people tell you the hardware requirements for ISE are pretty substantial. If you're running a virtual environment, you're going to be dedicating quite a bit of resources to an ISE VM. That is something that could be worked on."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and it is not simple to use."
"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 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."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"It should be easier to install. It is a comprehensive product, which makes it difficult to install. You need to have their consulting services in order to get it all installed and set up correctly because there is so much going on. It would be nice if there were an easier way to do the installation without professional services. I suspect they get a fair amount of their money from professional services. So, there is not a huge incentive."
"The PTA could be improved. Currently, companies often have multiple domains and sometimes it's difficult to implement CyberArk in this kind of infrastructure. For example, you can add CPM (Central Policy Manager) and PSM (Privileged Session Manager and PVWA (Password Vault Web Access) for access, but if you want to add PTA (Privileged Threat Analysis) to scan Vault logs, it is difficult because this component may be adding multiple domain environments."
"I'm not a fan of technical support with CyberArk. It's like jumping through red tape and hoops. Quite frankly, it's almost like when you call CyberArk you get the Help Desk or the level-one. I'm a level-one. I got the CCD, I know how to do the initial troubleshooting. When I call CyberArk it's because I can't figure the problem out. So I need a level-two, three, four. I don't need you to tell me, "Hey, open a ticket and then give me logs.""
"The authentication port is available in CyberArk Alero but not Fortinet products."
"There is room for improvement in the availability of custom connectors on the marketplace for this solution. Additionally, their services for the CICD pipeline and ease of integration could be improved."
"More additional features as far as the REST is concerned, because we have something which was the predecessor to REST. A lot of the features which were in the predecessor have not necessarily been ported over to REST yet."
"It can be made user-friendly, in the sense of the console is pretty outdated."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 137 reviews while CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 144 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8. 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 CyberArk Privileged Access Manager writes "Lets you ensure relevant, compliant access in good time and with an audit trail, yet lacks clarity on MITRE ATT&CK". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security, whereas CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Delinea Secret Server, WALLIX Bastion, One Identity Safeguard and ManageEngine PAM360.
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.