We compared Cisco ACI and Cisco Secure Workload based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Cisco ACI is known for its complex setup but offers easier configuration and management once deployed. Users appreciate its simplicity, automation features, and scalability. However, concerns were raised about the GUI, pricing, integration with other systems, and technical support. On the other hand, Cisco Secure Workload has a moderate setup process and a user-friendly interface. However, there are areas for improvement in terms of integration and dashboard usability, and controversies surrounding data retention. In summary, Cisco ACI primarily focuses on network infrastructure management, while Cisco Secure Workload emphasizes security scoring and vulnerability identification.
"It is easy to use because you have all the information coming from the same technology."
"I like using WebEx Board."
"It improves security and automation."
"I like features like policy control and micro-segmentation."
"The security component is its most valuable feature."
"It has made it much easier to deploy and make changes in the data center versus the previous infrastructure, which was NX-OS based."
"It is very stable. It works 100 percent of the time."
"The centralized configuration is its most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is micro-segmentation, which is the most important with respect to visibility."
"It's stable."
"Scalability is its most valuable feature."
"Secure Workload's best feature is that it's an end-to-end offering from Cisco."
"The solution offers 100% telemetry coverage. The telemetry you collect is not sampled, it's not intermittent. It's complete. You see everything in it, including full visibility of all activities on your endpoints and in your network."
"The product offers great visibility into the network so we can enforce security measures."
"The product provides multiple-device integration."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that we don't have to do packet captures on the network."
"The ability for us to figure out the traffic flows, to enable some of the more segmentation parts of it, is really tough with what is built into ACI."
"Before version 5, you could manage your firewall or load balancer from the AP. It was very basic and now they removed the whole features in the new version, so you cannot manage your load balance or firewall from your AP on L2, L4, and L7 services."
"Our company had a lot of issues with the starter kit."
"It would be nice if I could specify network-centric in my design, and the system would organize and set itself up in that way."
"The user interface should be made easier."
"It would be better to introduce some wizards to guide you through the whole configuration process instead of clicking through a bunch of menus with no concrete path. It is too easy to forget one or another if you configure it this way."
"I wish that if I had to open up an additional tab, I wouldn't have to log in every single time."
"The firewall has room for improvement because there is no central inspection yet on Cisco ACI."
"They should scale down the hardware a bit. The initial hardware investment is two million dollars so it's a price point problem. The issue with the price comes from the fact that you have to have it with enormous storage and enormous computes."
"I'd like to see better documentation for advanced features. The documentation is fairly basic. I would also like to see better integration with other applications."
"There was a controversy when Cisco reduced the amount of data they kept, and the solution became quite cost-intensive, which made its adoption challenging….Although they have modified it now, I preferred the previous version, and I wish all the functionality were back under the same product."
"There is some overlap between Cisco Tetration and AppDynamics and I need to have a single pane of glass, rather than have to jump between different tools."
"The emailed notifications are either hard to find or they are not available. Search capabilities can be improved."
"It has an uninviting interface."
"It is not so easy to use and configure. It needs a bunch of further resources to work, which is mainly the biggest downside of it. The deployment is huge."
"The interface is really helpful for technical people, but it is not user-friendly."
Cisco ACI is ranked 2nd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 96 reviews while Cisco Secure Workload is ranked 9th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 13 reviews. Cisco ACI is rated 8.0, while Cisco Secure Workload is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco ACI writes "Stable, easy to extend, scalable, and has a host-based routing feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Secure Workload writes "A solution that provides good technical support but its high cost makes it challenging for users to adopt it". Cisco ACI is most compared with VMware NSX, Nuage Networks, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Juniper Contrail Networking and HPE SDN, whereas Cisco Secure Workload is most compared with Illumio, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, VMware NSX, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine). See our Cisco ACI vs. Cisco Secure Workload report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security 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.
