We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Forcepoint ONE 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)."The return on investment we have seen is related to time in terms of troubleshooting. The logs, such as the security logs, inform us of the issues that people have had. ISE has been very instrumental in helping isolate those issues. We've seen a lot of cost savings because we don't have to pay an IT person to waste time doing something that should be instantaneous."
"The RADIUS Server holds the most value."
"From a configuration point of view, it's simple."
"It is a good product for what it does...So, it is one of the most critical systems that we have."
"For device administration, all devices have multifactor authentication in collaboration with IT, so it secures access to all of our devices. For guest and wireless access, it's a matter of a lowly manager who we give access to the portal and he can assign access to the guests, so it's a very simple process now. It keeps the IT focusing on their work, and gives the business people the right access."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility of the policy sets."
"The policy sets give us more granular groups for end-user access."
"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."
"The solution’s AJAX-VM provides constant reverse proxy uptime. It has been very positive for our security operations. When people are trying to access the SaaS solution, it protects us from downloading any of that data and experiencing any type of attacks"
"The most valuable features of Forcepoint include Zero Trust Network Access and remote user protection for private applications."
"Forcepoint ONE is okay for me, and I find it a very good solution. Its most valuable feature is monitoring. Its monitoring is very good, and it can communicate with a SIEM system. I also find the DLP feature of Forcepoint ONE good."
"The platform's feature that has been most beneficial for our web security is its capability to replicate rules."
"By default without a policy, Bitglass has the capability to notify the admin of multiple or simultaneous logins across a wide range of geographical regions."
"We are able to verify what is getting saved out onto the cloud. It allows us to have some DLP rules, since we have to be HIPAA compliant. If some personal health information has been uploaded to Office 365, then we are able to detect that sort of thing and account for it. We have set up rules to prevent people from doing that."
"The solution is very good when it comes to securing us against data leakage, because of the other proxy. It also has API scanning or data at rest. It inspects data in motion, which is the proxy, and then it has the data at rest, which is the API scanning. We can inspect for anything we want: file fingerprinting, PHI-sensitive data, PCI-sensitive data. It does not matter. We can usually find it and block it in transit and do our remediation with it. It could either be block, encrypt, or allow and watermark the file to follow it and see where it goes. It allows for those different scenarios."
"The core CASB solution is the most valuable part. It allows us to put policies in place around which devices can log into our cloud applications. We have a policy that states that only company devices can access these cloud applications."
"The Cisco wireless controller needs to add more than one physical port."
"I'm working from China currently and the only real issue is that, within the country, there's some concern around Cisco and its ability to offer the solution for the long term. As the United States has banned the Huawei version in their country, we feel there may be retaliation in ours and Cisco will get banned as a countermeasure from the government. The future of Cisco in China is in question. Our local partners are worried about the situation."
"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."
"There are always some things that I would request."
"The compliance and posture don't always work. They should make it more stable. With each upgrade, we lose some functionality. We have to wait for another upgrade."
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"The area where things could be improved is education. It's complicated to deploy initially because you have to know what you're getting into."
"They should improve their licensing. Licensing is always trouble with Cisco, and Cisco Identity Services Engine is no different. The way the product is licensed could be improved."
"Integration into different multi-factor authentication tools. On their page, they tout Duo, but I don't use Duo. I use another vendor. Not that they don't interact, but it takes a little bit more doing. Any amount of efficiencies here would help."
"I wish they would advance more into the endpoint DLP solution. Currently they do not do anything around endpoint, they're still strictly cloud-based. The forward proxy is really the only thing they do. What I would like to see them do is to scan machines, workstations and servers, for information we might not want on those machines. That would be huge."
"Areas for improvement for the platform include addressing scalability and architecture concerns, especially for large deployments involving more than 500 or 1,000 users."
"Their new SASE (secure access service edge) product would have been the one thing I would have requested. Now that they have that platform, I'd like to see it as integrated and seamless as possible with the core product. That's what they're working towards and that's where we're seeing the advancements."
"Bitglass integration with some IDP providers needs improvement."
"In our environment, when an Active Directory password changes, we tend to have some latency issues with access. It takes about 15 minutes before that password is accessible through Bitglass after the change. That would be the major thing I see as a negative."
"One area for improvement in Forcepoint ONE is that you'll need more training to install the solution yourself. I practiced in a laboratory and I needed more technical information to do the installation."
"We encounter challenges in determining whether certain features for blocking certain file types or preventing automatic downloads are functioning correctly."
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 Forcepoint ONE is ranked 25th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 11 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Forcepoint ONE is rated 8.4. 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 Forcepoint ONE writes "Gives us another layer of protection when it comes to end users; an extra set of eyes and ears". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Forcepoint ONE is most compared with Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler Internet Access and Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway.
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.
