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, Forescout and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."The most valuable feature is 801.1x and another very good feature is the TACACS."
"Typically, the installation is pretty simple."
"I really enjoy the live log section. Sometimes, you will have someone who is having issues connecting to the network, and then you have to ask them the dreaded question of, "Did you type a password wrong?" They will probably tell you, "No," but the live log can help sort that out. It gives us that extra ability to assist the end user and make sure that we are making them happy."
"The product is stable."
"The first benefit is that we can implement zero trust architecture because of Cisco ISE. I can assure my CISO in my company that my network is such that nobody can just bring in their laptop, desktop, or any sort of mobile device and can directly get connected to my network. That is a benefit that I can only allow people who I trust on the network."
"Cisco offers automation, visibility, and control as well as third party integration capabilities."
"From a configuration point of view, it's simple."
"It is stable and easy to use."
"It is very easy to scale the product."
"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."
"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."
"The support could be faster and the pricing could be reduced."
"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."
"Segmentation can be improved."
"We do tend to run into a lot of issues with ISE when it comes to bugs."
"In a future release, I would like to see network access control. That is something that customers seem to be looking for."
"I would like to see the product simplified more, especially with the configuration."
"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.