We compared Cisco Identity Services Engine and Fortinet FortiNA (ISE)C based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Cisco ISE seems to be the slightly superior solution because of its expansive integration capabilities.
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"The WiFi portal in Cisco ISE is very useful for WiFi customers."
"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."
"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."
"Since migrating towards doing wired ports over ISE with 802.1X and MAB authentication, our organization's security risk has been better. We have been able to establish better layouts, so devices can move and we don't have to worry about where they need to go."
"The most valuable features are authentication, we have more granular control on the access policies for the administrators. The solution is easy to use, has a center point administration, and has a good GUI."
"In terms of features, I think they've done a lot of improvement on the graphical user interface — it looks really good right now."
"In terms of scalability, you need to factor in your licenses. With a virtual platform, the scalability is more than sufficient. We have over one thousand users."
"All the features of Fortinet FortiNAC are valuable."
"Fortinet FortiNAC has good user account customization."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the user-friendliness, the graphical interface, and the technical support. The interface is very nice and the customization is good."
"It's a very good solution and one thing I have noted is its simplicity and the ease of the set-up process."
"The FortiNAC features I found the most valuable are security and the ability to consolidate wireless networks."
"Version 9.1 has been an improvement on previous versions. It's a good solution for SMB."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is having visibility over the IoT devices on the network."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to protect devices connected to network service."
"I would definitely improve the deployment and maybe a little bit of the support. Our first exposure to ISE had a lot of issues."
"The interface is a little bit complex."
"With the recent release of the solution, we had a bunch of bugs and we had to delay our deployment. Other than that, the solution is good."
"Migration could be better. Right now, we back up with the new version, and it requires a lot of licensing and other things. Whenever we choose a product, it's very difficult because we have to meet the requirements of each feature. There is no standard feature, so the best system that we bought may not fit the solution. We have to look at every feature that the customer uses. If you compare it with other products like Aruba, it's not the same. With Cisco, I have to read all about the features on this version and the licensing required for the product. In Aruba, that thing is covered when you get one license because it covers almost everything. It could also be more scalable."
"Automation [is an area for improvement]. It seems like everywhere I look, automation is super important. Automation and integrations. That's the area it could be improved..."
"The user interface could be improved to make it more user-friendly."
"Cisco ISE is complex. The deployment and design of networks with it is so complex. If it could change it would be better."
"One of the issues that we used to have was with profiling because we're working with a service provider that uses a lot of bring your own devices."
"The training from Fortinet FortiNAC could improve. Fortinet has to plan for better training for its partners. Additionally, device management should have more integration with other devices, such as new and third-party devices."
"The product could be more user-friendly in terms of GUI."
"Fortinet FortiNAC could improve its hardware for use with cloud-based firewalls."
"Our users have been asking for simpler documentation and training materials to facilitate the deployment process."
"One of the biggest issues with Fortinet FortiNAC is that it is not intuitive and has a high learning curve."
"This solution could be more agile."
"The user interface and the product's intuitiveness could be improved."
"There could be better integration with legacy equipment. It integrates perfectly with all Fortinet solutions, but if you look at other third-party integrations—not on the networking part; but more on the security infrastructure part—it's more limited."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 137 reviews while Fortinet FortiNAC is ranked 4th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 44 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiNAC is rated 7.6. 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 Fortinet FortiNAC writes "I like the solution's native integration with other devices from the same vendor". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security, whereas Fortinet FortiNAC is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, Fortinet FortiClient and Portnox CORE. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Fortinet FortiNAC 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.