We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Cisco Secure Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cisco Security Portfolio solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The WiFi portal in Cisco ISE is very useful for WiFi customers."
"The core point is that Cisco ISE is the same globally compared to FortiAuthenticator. Whether I deploy in China, the US, South Africa, or wherever, I'm can get all the capabilities. It allows me to directly integrate with 365, and from a communications point of view, that is a good capability."
"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."
"We found all the features of the product to be valuable."
"It's easy to change and add policies."
"It is stable and easy to use."
"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 solution's dashboard is fine, and in terms of support, Cisco is better than other OEMs in the market."
"The grouping of the solutions helps save time. If you have a problem and you have a high-level overview of the system, you can easily dig deeper into the problem. For example, I can check to see why ASA isn't working but the reason for the outage is actually because of Duo. I can spend a lot of time working in the wrong direction because I didn't have an overview."
"Being able to use it as a policy-based VPN is valuable. It's very easy to understand. It's very easy to troubleshoot."
"It's quite a capable box for UTM."
"I like the Cisco ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager), which is the configuration interface for the Cisco firewall."
"URL filtering is valuable."
"The product offers good scalability."
"In v9.8 you are able to do active/backup HA with ASAv (Adaptive Security Virtual Appliance) deployed on MS Azure."
"If Cisco could grant more control, the features could be more focused on network and security administration, reducing the need for integration with other components."
"Cisco ISE has numerous features that are impractical, and I won't utilize them since they require payment."
"The solution could be more secure."
"I would like for the next release to be easier to implement and to limit its dependencies around ISE, Windows, the network as a whole, etc."
"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."
"I would like to see integration with other vendors, and the RADIUS integration needs to be improved a little bit."
"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."
"Support and integration for the active devices needs to be worked on. Their features mainly work well with Mac devices. If we use an HP the Mac functionalities may no longer be able to deliver."
"Some of the features, like the stability, need to be improved."
"I would like for them to develop better integration with other security platforms."
"The initial setup was a bit complex. It wasn't a major challenge, but due to our requirements and network, it was not very straightforward but still easy enough."
"We cannot have virtual domains, which we can create with FortiGate. This is something they should add in the future. Additionally, there is a connection limit and the FMC could improve."
"The service could use a little more web filtering. If I compare it to Cyberoam, Cyberoam has more the web filtering, so if you want to block a website, it's easier in other solutions than in Cisco."
"I wouldn't give them a ten. Nobody is perfect. I'll give them a nine because they help me with any issues I've had."
"This product is managed using the Firepower Management Center (FMC), but it would be better if it also supported the command-line interface (CLI)."
"If I want to activate IPS features on it, I have to buy another license. If I want Cisco AnyConnect, I have to buy another license. That's where we have challenges."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Cisco Security Portfolio with 137 reviews while Cisco Secure Firewall is ranked 4th in Cisco Security Portfolio with 404 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Cisco Secure Firewall 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 Cisco Secure Firewall writes "Highlights and helps us catch Zero-day vulnerabilities traveling across our network". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Portnox CORE, whereas Cisco Secure Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX and Sophos XG. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Cisco Secure Firewall report.
See our list of best Cisco Security Portfolio vendors.
We monitor all Cisco Security Portfolio 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.