We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and macmon Network Access Control 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 works as a good RADIUS server. It has lots of features. It works with all the proprietary Cisco AB pairs and features."
"We found all the features of the product to be valuable."
"Typically, the installation is pretty simple."
"From a configuration point of view, it's simple."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"It integrates with the rest of our platform, like our firewall, and helps us a lot. It also does a good job establishing trust for every access request."
"One of the advantages is that you can easily find rogue endpoints. For example, if you don't want to allow any endpoints where you don't know the people plugging into what kind of devices, ISE can give you a big, clear picture, e.g., what kind of endpoints are getting connected to your network. That is one of the advantages."
"So far, we have had no issues with the stability."
"The ease of connecting with the client is valuable for me."
"We use it with our Cisco switches so we can see which switch it is actually connected to."
"The API is a great way to get information from other tools."
"The initial setup process is complex since there are so many big components."
"The learning curve is steep and the initial setup is complex."
"The interface is a little bit complex."
"Difficult to figure out the protocols and nodes in order to implement correctly."
"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."
"The web interface needs improvement. The new web interface that they have is not as easy to manage and we find it to be very slow."
"A main issue is that the upgrade process, over time, is extraordinarily fragile. Repeatedly, over the past several years, when we've tried to upgrade our Cisco ISE implementation, the upgrade has broken it. Ultimately, we have then had to rebuild it because we need it."
"The web UI should be made similar to the one in DNAC."
"The single sign-on process can be improved and the interface should be made more user-friendly."
"The service macmon offers is already great."
"The solution must allow users to filter files based on dates."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More macmon Network Access Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while macmon Network Access Control is ranked 9th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 3 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while macmon Network Access Control is rated 8.6. 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 macmon Network Access Control writes "A robust solution that provides protection to effectively control the access to your network". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas macmon Network Access Control is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout Platform. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. macmon Network Access Control 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.