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)."The most valuable features are authentication, we have more granular control on the access policies for the administrators. The solution is easy to use, has a center point administration, and has a good GUI."
"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."
"Not having to trust devices and being able to set those levels of trust and more finely control our network is a benefit."
"We found all the features of the product to be valuable."
"Among the most valuable features is TACACS."
"I have found that all of the features are valuable. It is very easy to deploy because we are able to port users directly from Active Directory (AD) and LDAP."
"A lot of customers use a third party to manage their guest Wi-Fi. Cisco ISE presents the ability to bring that in-house so that customers can have full control over it, change the branding, and get extra telemetry from it and the user data. It works really well for our customers."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility of the policy sets."
"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."
"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."
"With the tool in place, you need to hire fewer people to provide access, and you have control over your processes."
"Roles, connectors for provisioning and re-accreditation or reviews help greatly to govern user access."
"The Cisco wireless controller needs to add more than one physical port."
"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 would be helpful for us to know what needs to be deployed, configured, and what changes we need to make to our devices when we don't receive the specific login which is an indication of a lack of connection or incorrect configuration."
"In the next release, I would want to see this kind of solution in the cloud as opposed to on prem because when enhancements are made to the software, if it's in the cloud, it's overnight. I mean you're not going to have to respin the servers that the license sits on, it's all microservices kinds of things in the cloud. That would be my recommendation. If I'm a customer, that's what I'm looking at - for cloud based software subscriptions."
"A lot of people tell you the hardware requirements for ISE are pretty substantial. If you're running a virtual environment, you're going to be dedicating quite a bit of resources to an ISE VM. That is something that could be worked on."
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"Cisco ISE can become quite complex, especially with policy sets, the entire authentication process, and everything involved."
"There can be a little bit more integration between the controller management and ISE. There are two dashboards, you have the controller dashboards, and you have the ISE dashboard it would is a way to maybe integrate that into one. That would be great. It's not that bad. It would be easier if it could be combined into one dashboard."
"RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle could improve out-of-the-box customization."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support in Pakistan can be improved."
"If you use the appliance version then it won't handle a huge database volume."
"There are scalability issues. This product does not scale very well. It is not a good product for load balancing / active–active architecture."
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.