We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Impulse Point SafeConnect 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)."SGTs are valuable because they make it easy to enforce policies, instead of pushing them across all the other platforms."
"It's scalable."
"It is a good product for what it does...So, it is one of the most critical systems that we have."
"At the moment, ISE seems to integrate very well with a number of other technologies."
"It provides client provisions and profiling as well as guest access."
"Cisco offers automation, visibility, and control as well as third party integration capabilities."
"The user experience of the solution is great. It's a very transparent system."
"The most valuable feature is the provisioning of the device so as to ensure that they are compliant with the security policy that we need to have."
"It is very easy to scale the product."
"The pricing and licensing structure are not ideal for customers."
"Cisco ISE is complex. The deployment and design of networks with it is so complex. If it could change it would be better."
"On the network services devices, when you click on filter, the filter comes up. However, when I type in a search and I want to click on something it defaults back to the main page. I keep having an issue with that, and I'm not doing anything wrong."
"The primary issue is the slowness of the application and the web interface. We have multiple admin nodes and app nodes. So when I need to get some information about a particular user, the GUI would take ten to fifteen seconds in loading when we need to know right away."
"I'm frustrated by the resource consumption and how many resources it needs to run. It takes a lot of RAM. It takes a lot of space and a lot of IO power. It's frustrating to do upgrades because it takes a long time."
"There are issues with respect to the posture assessment function. It's been observed that customers are not receiving total access to the network because the assessment agent is glitchy and malfunctions from time-to-time. I would like to see refining of the compliance assessment and adding more detailed compliance of endpoints on the user end."
"Sometimes some of Cisco ISE's graphical interfaces could be a little bit smoother. However, with the different versions, the product is getting better and better."
"The software is a little bit complicated to understand in the beginning, meaning the implementation. It needs proper documentation so that we can understand the options more easily."
"The solution would be much better if it offered self-service onboarding."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews while Impulse Point SafeConnect is ranked 17th in Network Access Control (NAC). Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Impulse Point SafeConnect is rated 8.0. 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 Impulse Point SafeConnect writes "Easy to scale, enforces policies well, and has responsive technical support". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Impulse Point SafeConnect is most compared with Forescout Platform.
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.