We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Tenable Security Center 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)."They provide you multiple ways to achieve security, not only on-prem, but also when you have remote and guest workers. Especially post-pandemic, a lot of our customers have remote workers. So, it has been really helpful."
"When you push out the policy, it is able to populate the entire network at one time."
"It provides client provisions and profiling as well as guest access."
"The integration with Active Directory is the most valuable feature for us."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"It is stable and easy to use."
"Assisting a larger number of users in gaining access and guiding them through the process of getting on Cisco ISE has been seamless."
"Not having to trust devices and being able to set those levels of trust and more finely control our network is a benefit."
"The scanning part, the agent part – that's the valuable aspect."
"The usability is really good. It's very easy to use and a good platform. It is scalable and very stable. The technical support is fine and the setup is super easy."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the vulnerability assessment."
"The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs."
"The tool gives us fewer false positives. Compared to its competitors, the solution’s reports are more accurate."
"Tenable.sc's best features are the availability model, accident management, and scoring."
"The initial setup process is simple."
"Their overall cost of service is pretty good."
"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."
"The web UI should be made similar to the one in DNAC."
"The solution is not so user-friendly."
"The pricing is fair."
"A lot of people tell you the hardware requirements for ISE are pretty substantial. If you're running a virtual environment, you're going to be dedicating quite a bit of resources to an ISE VM. That is something that could be worked on."
"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."
"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."
"If you have someone taking care of it, it can be quite easy to manage the solution. Otherwise, if you don't look after it and take care of it day-to-day, then it will become more complex to run."
"The GUI could be improved to have all concerns and priorities use the same GUI, allowing them to see all tickets, assign vulnerabilities, and assign variation failures to each member of their team."
"The solution needs to improve the vulnerability assessment because we have experienced some challenges with accuracy."
"The user interface can be improved."
"Tenable's reporting engine needs improvement. It needs to be more efficient and add more features."
"The solution is expensive."
"Security can always be improved."
"The integration is very good, although it still needs to improve."
"Current web page needs improvement, slows down processes."
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 Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Tenable Security Center 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 Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Nessus and Horizon3.ai.
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.