We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Sophos Network Access Control 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."I love the policy sets, they are really nice and dynamic."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"They have recently made a lot of improvements. My clients don't have much to complain about."
"Typically, the installation is pretty simple."
"They provide you multiple ways to achieve security, not only on-prem, but also when you have remote and guest workers. Especially post-pandemic, a lot of our customers have remote workers. So, it has been really helpful."
"The best feature of the Cisco ISE platform is that it is compatible with Microsoft products."
"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."
"It's keeping our company safe from rogue devices connecting to our network. From a security standpoint, there's peace of mind knowing that every device that connects is a good one."
"Web protection, URL filtering, and application filtering are the most valuable features of Sophos Network Access Control."
"The most valuable features of Sophos Network Access Control are the quick response times to threats and reliable security."
"The pricing is very reasonable and you can negotiate on the price."
"There is really good visibility for the appliance."
"Sophos Network Access Control has a useful interface, and I like its dashboard, which is very useful for us to check everything."
"The installation is very straightforward."
"We have had interactions with the technical support team through the Xnet platform. It's good."
"The wifi control is fantastic and makes it very easy to administer."
"I think some areas where ISE could be better are perhaps in the number of integrations that they offer from a virtual standpoint, as well as having a better and more comprehensive pathway for the customer to go from a physical environment to a virtual one."
"There are always some things that I would request."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly."
"It is too complex. It should be easy to use. We are not such a big team. We only have three engineers to work with this, and we don't use all of the functionality of the product. Its range of functionality is too wide for us, and this is the reason why we are thinking of switching to a more simple product. We have shortlisted a Microsoft solution. We have a big footprint for Microsoft products, especially in security. As a global strategy, we try to leverage to the maximum what is possible around Microsoft."
"The solution configuration is complicated for setting the infrastructure. They have improved over the years but there is still a lot of room to improve. When comparing the simplicity to other vendors, such as Fortinet and Aruba they are behind."
"Some of the reporting could be improved."
"One of the issues that we used to have was with profiling because we're working with a service provider that uses a lot of bring your own devices."
"Migration could be better. Right now, we back up with the new version, and it requires a lot of licensing and other things. Whenever we choose a product, it's very difficult because we have to meet the requirements of each feature. There is no standard feature, so the best system that we bought may not fit the solution. We have to look at every feature that the customer uses. If you compare it with other products like Aruba, it's not the same. With Cisco, I have to read all about the features on this version and the licensing required for the product. In Aruba, that thing is covered when you get one license because it covers almost everything. It could also be more scalable."
"An area that could be improved is the information about licensing, which is fairly confusing at present."
"Sophos Network Access Control requires a lot of resources to work, which is an area for improvement. Pricing could also be improved because it's costly."
"I would like to see mobile administration capabilities in the next release so that we can administer the device from a mobile device."
"The solution can improve the for applying policies. They can be complex depending don't the group they are applied to."
"I would like to be able to fully customize the reports."
"The user interface, in terms of managing the product, could be better."
"The solution could offer more useful documentation."
"Sophos Network Access Control needs improvement regarding its slow interface, loading time, and reporting."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Sophos Network Access Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews while Sophos Network Access Control is ranked 7th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 18 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Sophos Network Access Control is rated 8.6. 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 Sophos Network Access Control writes "An affordable solution that provides web protection, URL filtering, and application filtering". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Sophos Network Access Control is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and Ruckus Cloudpath. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Sophos Network Access Control 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.