We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Portnox CORE 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 is stable and easy to use."
"Cisco offers automation, visibility, and control as well as third party integration capabilities."
"I like the automation of the collection of information."
"The integration with Active Directory is the most valuable feature for us."
"The access policies, and all of the policies in Cisco ISE, are important to us."
"The most valuable features are the ability to retrieve information about Active Directory user names, viewing the log files to see which MAC address tried to connect with the created SSIDs, portal designing for your company, hotspot tools, and creating network rules for WiFi access."
"We found that the most valuable features associated with this tool are posture assessment, policy management, VLAN assignments, guest assignment, and BYOD services. In addition to these services, the Cisco IOS software switch configuration feature is another very valuable aspect of the policy and compliance solution."
"It has all of the features available, in fact, more than what you need."
"The minute people have issues on their network, we can see what is happening right away."
"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"I am impressed with the solution's voucher capability and authentication. The tool is integrated with Active Direct storage."
"Previous to the deployment we didn't have complete visibility of all the endpoints, all the devices that are connected to the network. But with the deployment of portnox, we could see all the devices and where they're connecting. We can equally segregate and apply different rules, policies to each location that we didn't monitor specifically."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"It's a stable product."
"Technical support was very helpful when we needed them."
"The Vidahost feature is currently in action, and it appears to be providing valuable data insights."
"In a future release, I would like to see network access control. That is something that customers seem to be looking for."
"ISE is a little clunky. The front-end feels like it is from the 1980s."
"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."
"Sometimes, there are instances when Cisco ISE simply fails to function without any apparent reason, and regardless of the investigation we undertake, the logs indicate that everything is functioning properly, making it somewhat inexplicable."
"There should be a single button that can be pressed to dismiss all of the alarms at once."
"Troubleshooting and multi-ISE can be challenging with the solution."
"There should be more visibility into TrustSec policy actions. When TrustSec blocks something or makes any kind of changes to the network, we don't always see that. We have to log into the switch itself, or we have to get some type of Syslog parsing to do that."
"Profiling is a really good feature. However, it sometimes is a challenge for customers when there are issues with the remediation part. I would add a built-in remediation solution. That would be a very nice feature."
"Portnox CORE can improve on support for unmanaged switches (or hubs) and other brands of network devices. These kinds of devices are still in use in organisations, especially SMEs who cannot afford to buy a managed switch."
"The licensing is based on a per-port price, even when you are not using all of the ports, and this is something that could be improved."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"The price could be better."
"It could be a little cheaper."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews while Portnox CORE is ranked 12th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 14 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Portnox CORE 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 Portnox CORE writes "Simple UI, easy deployment but slow authentication times for devices". 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 Portnox CORE is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, Portnox Clear and Sophos Network Access Control. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Portnox CORE 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.