Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Reviews

Cisco ISE now competes with any other product in the space because of its centralized and unified highly secure access control with ISE. ISE grew out of ACS and in the process has grown up.

The learning curve is steep and the initial setup is complex.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've had no issues with scalability.

Customer Service:

Customer service is good.

Technical Support:

Technical support is very good.

Yes. I am a consultant, so I have used many competing products over the years.

The initial setup is complex, but not if you fully vet the solution and leverage the functionality.

I am the services firm that does this work and the SME for my organization.

It is hard to quantify ROI. It is more easily measured in increased mobility and security.

There are three levels of pricing: basic, plus, and apex. Basic satisfied our needs.

Yes, we used ClearPass.

Not all features are available with base license, plus license allows for profiling and provisioning

Profile Sets help organize how AAA is handled by grouping, like traffic into separate subroutines.

We implement this for customers is various verticals. Most of the time oit is in Education. It really helps secure, classify and manage users including guest and BYOD users.

The product has improved with its evolution. The initial setup, though, is extremely complex.

10 years. I have used this since it was Cisco ACS

As the product matures I encounter less and less problems.

The produt scales well.

Excellent. TACis quite knowledgable.

I have used Microsoft IAS/NPS, Funk, and Aruba ClearPass. ClearPass is the only product in the same league as Cisco ISE.

ISE is extremely complex. With the functionality and flexibility it offers that is to be expected.

I am the vendors's partner.

Licensing and pricing is a complicated calculation, so it is best to really understand your customers' needs. Also team up with the right resources at Cisco for help.

The interconnection with the ecosystem and the ability to force rules all over the network are the most important features.

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. 

I have been using this solution for five or six years.

It is a stable product.

It is scalable.

It has good technical support. We also have local support now, which is better. There is no problem with their technical support. 

People who are experts should deploy such products. In order to preserve the reputation, a product must be set up with the help of a talented or expert person because when you set up, deploy, or install the product in a wrong way, it gives negative feedback to customers.

The price can be lower, especially for subscriptions. It should be a lot cheaper to have a wide range of customers. The price should be comparable to competitive products like Forescout or Fortinet FortiNAC. Forescout is cheaper for customers looking for a cloud solution.

I would rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to grant access to users, we deploy the bring your own device policy.

Visitors can be granted access to the wifi network using their cellphones, notebooks or tablets in a very easy way. The ease of accessibility that anyone can have to the network is very quick and is a big improvement for our network.

The flexibility to grant anyone access to the network easily and in a secure way is its most valuable feature.

There should be an easier way to do the upgrades. Customers were having issues going from one version to the next. There are a lot of steps to get to the next version from the previous version which ends up being a bit of the headache with the upgrade. 

It's very stable. We have around 200 users and only four people are required for maintenance. 

As Cisco partners, the point is that we provide our own support. We prefer our own engineers to be ready to support the solution to provide the service to our customers.

We have seen ROI from using this solution. 

We plan to increase usage by around 20 to 30%.

It gives people the peace of mind that they have the possibility to grant access to the people that visit their premises and ensures that they are working in a safe environment that is pure and clear when they use the posture services of the solution.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We are using Cisco ISE for limiting port access in our organization's building for wired and wireless networks.

We were originally a Cisco shop and Cisco ISE integrated well with our other Cisco switches and networks.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for approximately three years.

The solution is stable and has good performance.

Cisco ISE  is scalable.

We have approximately 200 people using this solution in my organization.

When I have contacted the support for Cisco ISE I have always been satisfied.

The installation is not straightforward, it took us approximately one month.

They need to reduce the number of options for the installation or have a wizard that covers small, medium, and large enterprises.

We had an integrator help with the implementation. For the deployment, we had five engineers and for the maintenance and support, we use three engineers.

The price of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is expensive and we are thinking about changing to FortiGate.

I have evaluated Fortinet FortiGate solutions.

I would not recommend this solution.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a six out of ten.

My primary use case of this solution is to protect the website from web attacks. 

I use the F5 device on the DMZ zone of the firewall. A record will come to the virtual server on the F5. Then the F5 will upload the encrypted message to the server and decrypt this message. The firewall can see the traffic as unencrypted and we can mitigate the enemy and any attack from F5 and from the firewall.

The most valuable feature would be the protection. 

I would like for them to improve the reporting. 

This solution is stable.

It is scalable. 

I would rate their technical support as an eight. They provide a quick solution and I trust working with them. 

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The price is not very expensive. 

This solution can be used to protect one's application. The server has many features to secure and diagnose.

We mainly use it for authenticating devices on our network.

It's our way to track people who are authenticating onto our network, whenever they log on to our switches, et cetera. It's good for security purposes.

The interface is pretty easy to use.

Whenever we see the authentication logs, we can't see what device we're logging into. It shows us the main server, but we don't see details like, "It's in building 200," or that kind of thing. We can't see the IP address. We can see who logged in, but we can't see the IP address of the device.

I'm sure that's available. We just haven't figured out how to properly deploy it.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for about a year. I'm only using a small portion of it, so I don't know all the capabilities of the program.

The stability is good. I haven't had any issues with downtime or anything going out.

We use it enterprise-wide, around the world. That would indicate it's pretty scalable.

I haven't had to contact technical support.

It's a good product.

The solution is primarily used for authentification purposes. 

The solution is stable.

We have found the product to be scalable.

The device administration is great. 

It offers very good integrations and can easily be integrated with mobile devices.

The product works well with StealthWatch.

It's quite an innovative product.

Typically, the installation is pretty simple.

The solution isn't as dynamic as it could be. There are some limitations, specifically around switches. 

Deploying to a machine, as opposed to a dedicated appliance, can be a bit difficult. 

The network solutions need to be improved by Cisco.

I've been using the solution for three to four years. It's been a while at this point. 

The solution has been quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have this solution deployed to 6,000 or more users. 

An installation is pretty simple if it is on a dedicated hardware appliance. However, if someone chooses to deploy to a machine, then you can face certain challenges during the installation. On a dedicated appliance, you can deploy in two to three hours.

You only really need one person to deploy the product. You don't need to have a big team.

We are integrators and can deploy the solution for clients.

We are a systems integration company.

I'm using different versions of the solution, and not necessarily the latest one.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's worked well for us so far. We find Cisco to be innovative and to offer good products. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.