Most Helpful Review
Good stability and enables us to identify and isolate a machine that is infected or that is going to be infected
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"For device administration, all devices have multifactor authentication in collaboration with IT, so it secures access to all of our devices. For guest and wireless access, it's a matter of a lowly manager who we give access to the portal and he can assign access to the guests, so it's a very simple process now. It keeps the IT focusing on their work, and gives the business people the right access."
"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 initial setup was easy. It took around one month. We did the installation part within half an hour to two hours but we found a couple of issues so we raised a case and once everything was resolved it was a month in total."
"It is scalable because we use a network load balancer at the front of the PSN. It can be extended as we want to multiply. It's scalable to our environment. We have around 8,000 users and we are planning to expand it."
"After the product was installed, no one could access the secure connection network. In order for any laptop or any endpoint device to attach to my network, it needs to be authorized or be certified to be connected."
"For guests we give them limited access to the internet when they come in so that access has been useful. Previously, we just used to give them the APN key which they would leave with. Now, we give them credentials to use that are for a limited period of time."
"Visitors can be granted access to the wifi network using their cellphones, notebooks or tablets in a very easy way. The ease of accessibility that anyone can have to the network is very quick and is a big improvement in our network."
"In terms of scalability, you need to factor in your licenses. With a virtual platform, the scalability is more than sufficient. We have over one thousand users."
"I think that this is a good solution for evaluating vulnerability in the network."
"What is useful to me is being able to fulfill very customized scanning policies. In the clinical environment, because of vendor control, we can't perform credential-vulnerability scanning. And network scans, which I've done before, can cause a lot of impact. Being able to create very customized policies to be able to routinely scan and audit our clinical networks, while simultaneously not causing impact, is important to us."
"One of the most valuable features is their distributed scan model for allotting engines to work together as a pool and handle multiple scans at once, across multiple environments. Automatic scanning distribution is a distinguishing feature of their toolset."
"This solution has a much lower rate of false positives compared to competing products."
"The predictive prioritization features are pretty good. They do a lot of research and we trust the research that they do internally. They have knowledge of what's going on with many companies, where we only get a view into what's going on here. So the ability to get best practices out of them as part of this solution, is valuable to us."
"Tenable also helps us to focus resources on the vulnerabilities that are most likely to be exploited. And since it is continuously updated, it allows us to reevaluate quickly if there are new vulnerabilities found..."
"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"This product has the best results in terms of the lowest number of false-positives and false-negatives."
"The compliance and posture don't always work. They should make it more stable. With each upgrade, we lose some functionality. We have to wait for another upgrade."
"Support and integration for the active devices needs to be worked on. Their features mainly work well with Mac devices. If we use an HP the Mac functionalities may no longer be able to deliver."
"Since we have started, we struggled a lot to implement this solution into our network, and we opened a case a couple of times. Up until this point, nothing else needs to be improved with this product."
"They should improve the upgrades. It's not easy to upgrade the solution."
"I would rate this solution a 7.5 out of ten. To make it a ten they should have more people on tech support. They need to invest more in the product. It's a good product. They should just work on tech support. More support for the customer. It's not that easy to get somebody to understand this product. I have had some issues with tech before for the solution. One of them brought the solution down due to some of his activity. They need to hugely invest in their tech support."
"In order to make it a ten, it should be more user-friendly. You need somebody who is knowledgeable about it to use it. It's not easy to use. We have to rely heavily on technical support."
"There should be an easier way to do the upgrades. There are a lot of steps to get to the next version from the previous version which ends up being a bit of the headache with the upgrade."
"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."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
"If I want to have a very low-managed scan policy, it's a lot of work to create something which is very basic. If I use a tool like Nmap, all I have to do is download it, install it, type in the command, and it's good to go. In Security Center, I have to go through a lot of work to create a policy that's very basic."
"It's good at creating information, it's good creating dashboards, it's good at creating reports, but if you want to take that reporting metadata and put it into another tool, that is a little bit lacking."
"The vulnerability scan does not work correctly until the access privileges are set by the system administrator."
"There's a lot of information being streamed out of the reports. What would be nice, and maybe we just haven't found it, would be more of an executive-type view. We still expect it to collect all this information, but we would like a feature that would allow us to show it to an executive or a director or someone like that and give them some type of high-level overview but not get into the nitty-gritty."
"The reporting needs a lot of work on the template."
"The integration is very good, although it still needs to improve."
"Current web page needs improvement, slows down processes."
Pricing and Cost Advice
"If you go directly with Cisco for the implementation it's very, very expensive."
"The SMARTnet technical support is available at an additional cost."
"For the Avast virus scan, we pay around USD $95 per machine for five years which includes all updates and technical support."
"The price for Cisco ISE is high."
"The price can be lower, especially for subscriptions. It should be a lot cheaper to have a wide range of customers. The price should be comparable to competitive products like Forescout or Fortinet FortiNAC. Forescout is cheaper for customers looking for a cloud solution."
"There are other cheaper options available."
"The licensing costs for this solution are approximately $100,000 US, and I think that covers everything."
"The pricing is more than Nexpose."
"Costing is pretty reasonable compared to the competition."
"We're a Fortune 500 company... our licensing costs [are] in the seven figures."
"We pay around 60,000 on a yearly basis."
"The price can start at €10,000 ($13,000 USD) for between 500 and 1,000 assets, and the price can climb into the millions as more assets are added."
"I use a local license to perform penetration testing and I'm pretty happy with everything when it comes to pricing and licensing."
Questions from the Community
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Top Answer: The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution.
Top Answer: We pay around 60,000 on a yearly basis.
out of 19 in Network Access Control
Average Words per Review
out of 36 in Vulnerability Management
Average Words per Review
Compared 33% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Compared 43% of the time.
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Also Known As
|Cisco ISE||Tenable Unified Security, Tenable SecurityCenter|
|Cisco||Tenable Network Security|
|Identity Services Engine is a security policy management platform that automates and enforces context-aware security access to network resources. It delivers superior user and device visibility to support enterprise mobility experiences and to control access. It shares data with integrated partner solutions to accelerate their capabilities to identify, mitigate, and remediate threats.|
Tenable SC consolidates and evaluates vulnerability data across the enterprise, prioritizing security risks and providing a clear view of your security posture. With SecurityCenter, get the visibility and context you need to effectively prioritize and remediate vulnerabilities, ensure compliance with IT security frameworks, standards and regulations, and take decisive action to ensure the effectiveness of your IT security program and reduce business risk.
Learn more about Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine)
Learn more about Tenable SC
|Aegean Motorway, BC Hydro, Beachbody, Bucks County Intermediate Unit , Cisco IT, Derby City Council, Global Banking Customer, Gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha, Houston Methodist, Linz AG, London Hydro, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Molina Healthcare, MST Systems, New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Reykjavik University, Wildau University||IBM, Sempra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, Adidas, Union Pacific|
Comms Service Provider21%
Computer Software Company17%
Financial Services Firm13%
Comms Service Provider33%
Computer Software Company21%
Financial Services Firm29%
Comms Service Provider14%
Computer Software Company29%
Comms Service Provider20%
Financial Services Firm5%
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control with 22 reviews while Tenable SC is ranked 4th in Vulnerability Management with 9 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Tenable SC is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) writes "We've experienced first-hand the reliable protection provided against malware and ransomware". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable SC writes "Enables us to centralize and correlate all data and understand where the gaps are in our security posture". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiNAC, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Fortinet FortiToken, whereas Tenable SC is most compared with Tenable.io Vulnerability Management, Tenable Nessus, Qualys VM, Rapid7 InsightVM and BMC TrueSight Vulnerability Management.
See our list of .
We monitor all Network Access Control 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.