We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and ExtremeControl based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It does what it's supposed to. We use a certificate-based authentication method for corporate-managed devices. That means when a user walks in with their managed laptop and plugs it into the network, it chats with Cisco ISE in the background, allows it on the network, and away they go."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"They have recently made a lot of improvements. My clients don't have much to complain about."
"The product is useful for device administration."
"The most valuable feature is AnyConnect Posture because it scans all the programs on the workstation and checks if the antivirus is up to date, as well as the cryptographic keys on our SSD."
"Having access and being able to add people or change authentication yourself is nice. In the past, we've used other group authentication services, and we always had to go to them and get permissions. Having that control is key."
"We have seen ROI. It has done its job. It has protected us when we needed it to."
"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."
"It has effectively enhanced network security and integrated with other security tools to streamline operations."
"There is information on migrating most of the cloud system's features."
"I can know which end users are using which features."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The company also uses Cisco ISE in other places. I have been told that ExtremeControl is easier to use than ISE. The other reason we prefer ExtremeControl is stability. That's why they chose it for this big hospital in Oslo."
"The web UI should be made similar to the one in DNAC."
"It would be nice if it could be configured easily by default."
"The learning curve is steep and the initial setup is complex."
"The support could be faster and the pricing could be reduced."
"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."
"There can be a little bit more integration between the controller management and ISE. There are two dashboards, you have the controller dashboards, and you have the ISE dashboard it would is a way to maybe integrate that into one. That would be great. It's not that bad. It would be easier if it could be combined into one dashboard."
"Adding new devices was a little cumbersome. I haven't done it that many times, but I remember that adding new devices to the authentication piece of it was a little cumbersome. The way I was shown to do it, I thought it was odd because we had to go into the active device, copy the file down, export it, make some changes to it, and then reimport it as opposed to being able to click it and having a template to fill out."
"In order to make it a ten, it should be more user-friendly. You need somebody who is knowledgeable about it to use it. It's not easy to use. We have to rely heavily on technical support."
"One improvement could be better clarification, namely that the system only works optimally with all components purchased together."
"I'd like to have access to more information on the traffic passing through."
"There isn't enough development for the on-premises controller."
"The installation is easy, it can take between five minutes to four hours depending on the complexity of the environment. The speed of the installation could improve for more complex environments."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while ExtremeControl is ranked 15th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 5 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while ExtremeControl is rated 7.2. 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 ExtremeControl writes "Has a simple setup process, but it could be affordable ". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM), whereas ExtremeControl is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout Platform. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. ExtremeControl 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.