We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle 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)."At the moment, ISE seems to integrate very well with a number of other technologies."
"The product is useful for device administration."
"Using this solution gives us the ability to allow proper access to the network."
"The user experience of the solution is great. It's a very transparent system."
"It integrates with the rest of our platform, like our firewall, and helps us a lot. It also does a good job establishing trust for every access request."
"The best feature of the Cisco ISE platform is that it is compatible with Microsoft products."
"The integration with Active Directory is the most valuable feature for us."
"From a configuration point of view, it's simple."
"The data collection is excellent and easy to do. It does not require a lot of configuration nor does it require rules to be written like other competitors do."
"Roles, connectors for provisioning and re-accreditation or reviews help greatly to govern user access."
"With the tool in place, you need to hire fewer people to provide access, and you have control over your processes."
"RSA Identity Governance and lifecycles are good for the access certification and auditing sections."
"The most valuable feature is the security, in particular, the One Time Password support."
"ISE is a little clunky. The front-end feels like it is from the 1980s."
"The interface is a little bit complex."
"There is room for improvement in CLI. Most things are done through the GUI, and there aren't many commands or troubleshooting options available compared to other Cisco products like switches and routers."
"If I was going to improve anything, it would be the ease of migration. It's really difficult at the moment if you're looking to upgrade ISE 2.1 and you want to go to ISE 3.1 or 3.2, that whole upgrade path and, particularly, the licensing is quite a minefield to sort out."
"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."
"The customer server was great but it would have been better for me if they had support in other languages such as Spanish."
"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."
"It does a good job of establishing trust for every access request. We have had a little bit of a challenge with profiling, but we are probably about 80% there."
"The user interface and workflow need improvement, and more connectors would help."
"Every connector that you have in the product needs to be custom-built, so there are not a lot of standard connectors available in the product, because of which there are a lot of hidden consultancy costs."
"There are scalability issues. This product does not scale very well. It is not a good product for load balancing / active–active architecture."
"This product is missing a lot of features which other competitors are providing. One of the key features that are missing right now is risk scoring. Additionally, there is not much scope for customization - everything is hard-coded and predefined, so it does not allow the developers to make many modifications."
"RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle could improve out-of-the-box customization."
"Technical support in Pakistan can be improved."
"If you use the appliance version then it won't handle a huge database volume."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews while RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is ranked 22nd in Identity Management (IM) with 9 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is rated 6.8. 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 RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle writes "Lacking customization, poor support, but useful auditing". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Saviynt, One Identity Manager and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager.
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.