We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and NetIQ Identity Governance 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)."We have multiple metal devices from different places that use management, so we need to know who would be accessing all those devices and what changes are being done to those metal devices. With Cisco ISE we have visibility of all the changes happening on those devices."
"The best features are the scalability and the license structure."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"Technical support is okay."
"The ability to allow or deny hosts onto the network is valuable. It provides great security to the network environment."
"We found all the features of the product to be valuable."
"It does what it's supposed to. We use a certificate-based authentication method for corporate-managed devices. That means when a user walks in with their managed laptop and plugs it into the network, it chats with Cisco ISE in the background, allows it on the network, and away they go."
"The most valuable feature is 801.1x and another very good feature is the TACACS."
"All three functionalities, access certification, the configuration of duties, and role mining - especially role mining - are very advanced compared with the competition."
"This solution has been around for a long time. It has had lots of successful deployments and releases."
"We’re very satisfied with technical support. Usually we get people with the right knowledge who understand the solution very well."
"NetIQ Identity Governance has improved the security of my company."
"I really like the separation of the duties. It is the most ambitious model in the server because you have to create all the different rules, especially business rules. You have to check with the client and set different policies and rules, and then, you to have refine them. You will notice what is bad in the company and where the real problem is."
"When doing a review you can either make manual or automatic fulfillment to immediately apply the manager's decision to the system, like removing or adding new permissions to the user account."
"You can run reports and verify the access each user has. There is a process that runs automatically for access review. It sends an email to the manager and provides a task for the manager to review the users and access. The manager can approve or reject, and then it goes to the application owner for further review. This feature is especially important in large customer environments, as manual review can be challenging."
"I like the queries and find the catalog to be comparatively powerful."
"Cisco ISE has numerous features that are impractical, and I won't utilize them since they require payment."
"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 interface is not very user-friendly and it is not simple to use."
"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."
"It could be more intuitive in terms of how to configure the policies."
"The policies could be adjusted to make them more easily implementable."
"I don't like the fact that we can see the logs only for 24 hours. Maybe that happens because of the way we set it up."
"This product doesn't work in isolation."
"The initial setup has room for improvement."
"With NetIQ, you have to install two or more products. It would be better if we could install one product and have one server and one dashboard."
"NetIQ Identity Governance is not flexible. Sometimes, filtering information to provide users with options, such as selecting the application to which they want to request access, can be challenging. It needs to improve application integration as well."
"Technical support is horrible."
"They haven't really evolved the product to the cloud, so they don't have a cloud solution."
"We need more connectors to cloud applications like AWS."
"The product could use more advanced features related to Identity Intelligence."
"The solution should provide more connectors in future releases. The solution also should offer more monitoring."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews while NetIQ Identity Governance is ranked 21st in Identity Management (IM) with 9 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while NetIQ Identity Governance 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 NetIQ Identity Governance writes "Helps to run reports and verify user access but improvement is needed in integration ". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas NetIQ Identity Governance is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, OpenText Identity and Access Management and One Identity 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.